Raoul Edward Marvin v. Vernon Smith, Superintendent Attorney General of the State of California

8 F.3d 28 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Raoul Edward MARVIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vernon SMITH, Superintendent; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents-Appellees. No. 91-55722. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Aug. 6, 1993. Decided Oct. 4, 1993. 1 Before: BROWNING, FARRIS, and KELLY, * Circuit Judges. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 Assuming error under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), Marvin nevertheless failed to "prove that the testimony had a 'substantial and injurious effect or influence' on the verdict." Henry v. Estelle, 993 F.2d 1423, 1427 (9th Cir.1993) (following Brecht v. Abrahamson, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 1722 (1993)); see also id. at 1427 n. 2 (Brecht applies retroactively). 1 4 The evidence of a fraudulent scheme was overwhelming. Even under the pre-Brecht standard, the alleged Doyle error was "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt," United States v. Newman, 943 F.2d 1155, 1158 (9th Cir.1991), given the…