Opinion ID: 866987
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Cumulative Error Allegation

Text: Lastly, Ramey contends that the cumulative effect of the alleged errors discussed above warrants a new trial. “[T]he cumulative error doctrine . . . provides that an aggregation of non-reversible errors (i.e., plain errors failing to necessitate reversal and harmless errors) can yield a denial of the constitutional right to a fair trial, which calls for reversal.” United States v. Delgado, 672 F.3d 320, 343–44 (5th Cir. 2012) (en banc) (alteration and omission in original) (quoting United States v. Munoz, 150 F.3d 401, 418 (5th Cir. 1998)). Reversal is only required, however, when those cumulative errors “so fatally infect[ed] the trial that they violated the trial’s fundamental fairness.” United States v. Fields, 483 F.3d 313, 362 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Bell, 367 F.3d 452, 471 (5th Cir. 2004)). “We have repeatedly emphasized that the cumulative error doctrine necessitates reversal only in rare instances and have previously stated en banc that ‘the possibility of cumulative error is often acknowledged but practically never found persuasive.’” Delgado, 672 F.3d at 344 (footnote omitted) (quoting Derden v. McNeel, 978 F.2d 1453, 1456 (5th Cir. 1992) (en banc)). “Its application is especially uncommon where, as here, the government presents substantial evidence of guilt.” Id. A cumulative error claim requires that “we evaluate the number and gravity of the errors in the context of the case as a whole.” United States v. Valencia, 600 F.3d 389, 429 (5th Cir. 2010). As we have discussed, Ramey has demonstrated, at most, three potential errors: the government’s alleged reference to his Fifth Amendment privilege, the introduction of testimony concerning the impact of Ramey’s crime on a victim of the Manhattan Gold scheme, and the government’s admission of Rule 404(b) evidence in the absence of notice. Even assuming, arguendo, that these were errors, given the 19 Case: 12-20044 Document: 00512235749 Page: 20 Date Filed: 05/08/2013 No. 12-20044 substantial evidence of Ramey’s guilt adduced at trial, and the relatively inconsequential nature of the errors in the context of the entirety of the case, we are not persuaded that their cumulative effect denied Ramey of a fair trial. See United States v. Neal, 27 F.3d 1035, 1051–52 (5th Cir. 1994). Simply put, this is not “the unusual case in which synergistic or repetitive error violate[d]” the trial’s fundamental fairness. Delgado, 672 F.3d at 344.