Opinion ID: 774020
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Harmless-Error Analysis

Text: 167 An error is not harmless if it had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). The principal factors to be considered in the determination of whether the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless are the importance of the witness's wrongly admitted testimony, and the overall strength of the prosecution's case. Wray v. Johnson, 202 F.3d at 526. In assessing importance, we consider questions such as whether the testimony bore on an issue that is plainly critical to the jury's decision,... whether that testimony was material to the establishment of the critical fact or whether it was instead corroborated and cumulative,... and whether the wrongly admitted evidence was emphasized in arguments to the jury. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The State has not argued here that error in the admission of the identifications by Cooke and Shiloh was harmless, and we conclude that it was not. 168 The identification testimony of Cooke and Shiloh clearly bore on an essential issue, the identity of the shooter. And that testimony was crucial to the prosecution's case, for the State presented no evidence other than the testimony of Cooke and Shiloh to tie Raheem to the events. None of the other persons who had been present at the Moulin Rouge could identify Raheem. And State law forbade the introduction of Crabb's testimony that Raheem had confessed. 169 Nor was any physical evidence offered to identify Raheem as the shooter. Although some fingerprints and a palm print had been gathered from the bar and from Moore's car, which the robbers used in their getaway, no prints matched those of Raheem. And although presumably the State had possession of the coat worn by Raheem in the lineup, and Moore testified that quite a bit of Hill's blood had gotten on the shooter's coat (Second Trial Tr.213-14), there was no testimony that Raheem's coat bore any evidence of bloodstain residue. 170 It is hardly surprising, therefore, that in its summation, the prosecution emphasized the identification testimony of Cooke and Shiloh. As to the identity of the shooter, the State had presented nothing else. The error in admitting that testimony cannot be termed harmless.