Opinion ID: 585701
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: The Cumulative Impact of Errors

Text: 16 Gay and Porter argue lastly that the cumulative effect of the foregoing errors warrants reversal of their convictions. See United States v. Wallace, 848 F.2d 1464, 1475-76 (9th Cir.1988). We reject this contention and affirm their convictions for two reasons. 17 First, Gay and Porter raise this issue for the first time on the last page of Porter's reply brief. As a general rule, appellants cannot raise a new issue for the first time in their reply briefs. Eberle v. City of Anaheim, 901 F.2d 814, 818 (9th Cir.1990). 18 Second, the scattershot errors alleged by Gay and Porter do not reveal a pattern or prevalence of error sufficient to mandate reversal of their convictions. Some errors are inevitable in trials of this length. But while a defendant is entitled to a fair trial, he is not entitled to a perfect trial, 'for there are no perfect trials.'  United States v. Payne, 944 F.2d 1458, 1477 (9th Cir.1991) (quoting Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1973)), cert. denied, 112 S.Ct. 1598 (1992). Gay and Porter received a fair trial. The convictions are 19 AFFIRMED.