and decisions of a magistrate judge is one instance [in which] we have held [that] waiver of appellate review results.”). It would not help Sachsenmaier even if we were to treat this as a forfeiture, because it is apparent on this record that Sachsenmaier was not prejudiced by the court’s ruling. The government never used the contested statements at trial: neither Larrabee nor Connell testified, and when Sergeant Cragin testified he made no reference to his conversations with either woman. We therefore need not decide whether the statements were coerced. If, as we strongly doubt, there was any error in the district court’s pretrial ruling, it was harmless and thus not a ground for reversal. See Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 295, 111 S.Ct. 1246, 113 L.Ed.2d 302 (1991) (<HOLDING>). B Sachsenmaier next contends that the
holding that harmlesserror analysis applies to coerced confessions holding misstatement of law in closing argument requires 442b harmlesserror analysis holding that the admission of evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search and seizure is subject to a harmlesserror analysis recognizing that harmlesserror analysis applies to britt violations holding that harmlesserror analysis is inappropriate in reviewing the appointment of an interested prosecutor