Guillermo Plascencia v. Wayne Estelle, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

87 F.3d 1321 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Guillermo PLASCENCIA, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Wayne ESTELLE, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellants. No. 95-56710. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 10, 1996. Decided June 26, 1996. 1 Before: O'SCANNLAIN and TROTT, Circuit Judges; VAN SICKLE, * District Judge. 2 MEMORANDUM ** 3 The State of California appeals the district court's order conditionally granting Guillermo Plascencia's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The district court, adopting the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge to whom it had referred the case, held that the improper admission of Plascencia's two coerced confessions in his state murder trial had "substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict," Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 622, 637 (1993) (citation, quotations omitted), and was thus not harmless error. 1 We…