then the error is harmless and the writ should not issue.. Id. This court has previously held that the harmless error doctrine applies to alleged coerced confessions. Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 308, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991); United States v. Alwan, 279 F.3d 431, 438 (7th Cir.2002). When applying the harmless error doctrine on collateral review, we may only grant Hinton’s petition for a writ of habeas if we conclude that the admission of his confession “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict,” which it did not. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637, 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 Aleman, 320 F.3d at 690 (<HOLDING>). Hinton somehow contends that without the
holding that the brecht standard applies on federal collateral review even after passage of the aedpa holding that a federal habeas court performing a harmless error inquiry on collateral review must employ the standard for harmless error articulated in brecht even if the state courts have never reviewed the error on direct appeal holding that de novo standard of review applies on federal claims never addressed by state courts holding that the aedpa standard of review applies even where the state court has given no indication of how it reached its decision holding that aedpa only applies where the state court adjudicated the constitutional issue on the merits