Opinion ID: 734867
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Effect of Trial Errors

Text: 40 We need not determine whether each of the above errors alone meet the substantial and injurious effect or influence standard because we conclude that the errors, when considered cumulatively, deprived Duran of his right to a fair trial. See Harris v. Wood, 64 F.3d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir.1995); Mak v. Blodgett, 970 F.2d 614, 622 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 951 (1993). 41 The errors that occurred at trial include the following: the prosecutor failed to disclose that a key prosecution witness had criminal charges pending at the time of trial; the prosecutor referred to Duran's post-arrest silence; the prosecutor referred to Duran's incarceration; the prosecutor referred to Duran's refusal to provide blood and urine samples; the trial court erroneously omitted jury instructions on justifiable homicide; trial counsel failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the case and discover evidence essential to the theory of defense; trial counsel failed to object to the prosecution's reference to Duran's post-arrest silence, incarceration and refusal to provide blood and urine samples; and trial counsel failed to object to the trial court's failure to instruct the jury on justifiable homicide. 42 These errors, considered cumulatively, had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury's verdict. Brecht, 507 U.S. at 637. The district court's denial of Duran's petition for habeas corpus was therefore erroneous.