Opinion ID: 3063358
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Peña-Santo's Cumulative Error Claim

Text: Peña-Santo argues that if none of his previous claims of error is sufficient to vacate his conviction, their cumulative prejudicial effect requires that his conviction be vacated and his case remanded for a new trial. We have acknowledged that [i]ndividual errors, insufficient in themselves to necessitate a new trial, may in the aggregate have a more debilitating effect. United States v. Sepúlveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1195-96 (1st Cir. 1993). [C]laims under the cumulative error doctrine are sui generis. Id. at 1196. When reviewing such a claim a Court must consider: each such claim against the background of the case as a whole, paying particular weight to factors such as the nature and number of [] errors committed; their interrelationship, if any, and combined effect; how the district court dealt with the errors as they arose (including the efficacy -- or lack of efficacy -- of any remedial efforts); and the strength of the government's case. Id. In addition, the length of the trial is another factor to be considered. Id. Here, none of Peña-Santo's alleged errors -- which are not many, considering the length of the trial -- resulted in substantial prejudice and most of them are entirely without merit. Furthermore, as previously explained, the evidence against PeñaSanto was very strong, and the district court did not conduct the trial in a manner that undermined his right to a fair trial. Thus, -31- we reject his contention that his conviction was tainted by cumulative error. See United States v. Flemmi, 402 F.3d 79, 95 n.23 (1st Cir. 2005) ([B]ecause we have found that none of [the defendant's] individual complaints resulted in substantial prejudice and that most are completely without merit, we reject the final contention that his conviction was tainted by cumulative error. (quoting United States v. DeMasi, 40 F.3d 1306, 1322 (1st Cir. 1994))). The Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not to a mistake-free trial. Sepúlveda, 15 F.3d at 1196 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681 (1986)); United States v. Polito, 856 F.2d 414, 418 (1st Cir. 1988)).