v. Collins, 994 F.2d 189, 197 (5th Cir.1993) (“The application of Miranda in the setting of a psychiatric examination is quite different from its application in an ordinary police interrogation.”); accord Powell, 492 U.S. at 683-86, 109 S.Ct. 3146. We therefore uphold the district court’s ruling that there was constitutional error in the February 2 evaluation. b. Harmless error This court will not overturn a state court conviction on habeas review unless the alleged constitutional error had a “substantial and injurious influence or effect” on the verdict. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)); see also Satterwhite, 486 U.S. at 257, 108 S.Ct. 1792 (<HOLDING>); Woods v. Johnson, 75 F.3d 1017, 1030 (5th
holding that the doctrine of harmless error applies when a due process violation is alleged and affirming a conviction when defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice holding error in admission of evidence is harmless when it was merely cumulative to other evidence in the record holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that when the prejudice from a sixth amendment violation is limited to the admission into evidence of the mental health testimony harmless error analysis applies holding improper admission of hearsay evidence is reversible error only when the admission causes prejudice