in the murders, and thus no Brady violation occurred. The statement supports a theory that both Tapia and Domino shot both victims. Insofar as ambiguities in the statement might be construed to support a theory that only Domino shot one or the other of the victims, the statement does nothing to undermine the conspiracy and aiding and abetting theories under which Tapia was also charged. The statement does not meet the “reasonable probability” threshold and does not undermine confidence in the verdict. See id. fusing to decide the issue and affirming on other grounds the district court decision in Lyons v. Johnson, 912 F.Supp. 679 (1996), using Chapman review when testing error for harmlessness for the first time on habeas). But see Hassine v. Zimmerman, 160 F.3d 941 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Hogue v. Johnson, 131 F.3d 466 (5th Cir.1997)
holding that a petitioner should be permitted to seek habeas review in state court even if there were doubt that the states substantive law would permit a habeas petition holding that brechtkotteakos should be used in habeas even when state courts failed to use chapman holding that brechtkotteakos should be applied on habeas even when no state court had ever evaluated claim using chapman on direct review holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review holding that stone applies even though state habeas court erroneously held that petitioners fourth amendment claim had been adjudicated on direct review