Court Opinion

ID: 2965353
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:39:04.12729+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:36.529772
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                                
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit
                                
                                

No. 98-1218

                        THOMAS H. AUSTIN,

                           Petitioner,

                                v.

                   GEORGE A. VOSE, JR., ET AL.,

                           Respondent.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

           [Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                       Selya, Circuit Judge,
                Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     Thomas Austin on brief pro se.
     Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Susanne g. Levsen,
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

June 19, 1998

                                
                                

            Per Curiam.  Upon careful review of the briefs and
    record, we reach essentially the same conclusion reached by the
    district court.  In our de novo review, we have applied the
    standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637
    (1993), and we have considered the factors outlined in
    Levasseur v. Pepe, 70 F.3d 187, 193 (1st Cir. 1995).  Thus, we
    conclude that, although the videotape may have been used
    extensively at the trial, and the identification issue to which
    it pertained may have been the central question before the
    jury, still the properly admitted evidence against petitioner
    was so strong that, even assuming the videotape improperly was
    shown to the jury, habeas relief is not warranted.  
              Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.