Stanley Davis appeals the district court’s order denying his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history, we will not recount it here. I The district court did not err in denying Davis’s claim for habeas relief based on the state trial court’s denial of his mistrial motion. Davis contends that the trial court should have granted his motion because the jury’s verdict may have been influenced by sympathy for the ailing Mrs. Mecchi after the jury overheard her making a loud noise directly outside of the courtroom. In order to be entitled to relief for constitutional errors, the error must have “ ‘had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 6 990) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, there was no “direct and
holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report holding that juror access to a police report not admitted into evidence did not prejudice the verdict when the information it contained duplicated trial testimony holding that the officer played no role in the prosecution because the police report provided to the prosecutor did not contain false information holding that district court properly considered a police report that the defendant had stipulated contained a factual basis for his plea holding that the information contained in the police files with regard to other possible suspects was not brady material