Akhmad
Akhmad v. Ignacio
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM *
Akhmad claims that jury misconduct occurred during deliberations at his trial. He has the burden of showing that a constitutional error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The introduction of juror “expert” medical opinion bore on a critical issue in the case. However, the weight of the evidence against Akhmad was such that any error was harmless, and did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s decision.
Akhmad also alleges prejudicial prosecu-torial misconduct. The prosecutor’s remarks to the jury during closing argu- *257 merits, however, were fair inferences to be drawn from the record and did not render the trial “so infected ... with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden v. Wainmight, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Any references to evidence not presented at trial did not constitute plain error.