whose testimony was inaccurate, self-serving, and nonsensical in light of other evidence. Defense counsel even went so far as to implore jurors that, “if you don’t believe [Levatte and Harris’s] testimony, then you can’t find the defendant guilty.” On the facts of this case, there is no logical or evidentiary connection between Thomas’s false exculpatory statement and the believability of Levatte and Harris. Thomas’s statement suggested only that she was not being truthful in the holding cell, but that fact, even if proven, has no bearing on Levatte and Harris’s credibility. Thomas has pointed to no aspect of defense counsel’s trial strategy or eviden-tiary presentation that would have been different absent the admission of her statement from the holding cell. Cf. Hart, 323 F.3d at 895 (<HOLDING>). As a result, Thomas cannot show defense
holding miranda error prejudicial in part because the defense presented testimony it otherwise would not have due to the improperly admitted statements holding that plain error review was not available for alleged improperly admitted testimony holding that overwhelming evidence of element of crime rendered miranda error harmless when improperly admitted statement went to same element holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless