accurately represented the appearance of the lounge at that time. This evidence was properly admitted and was before the jury in relation to counts I-IV of Stewart’s counterclaim. Because the jury had already viewed the photographs of the lounge during trial and had listened to testimony describing the condition of the lounge, we cannot say that allowing the jury to view the photographs during its deliberation on count V more probably than not tainted its verdict. Moreover, the photographs merely reflected factual circumstances (the condition of the lounge) on which testimony had been properly received. The photographs were not the type of evidence specifically tailored to arouse sympathy and prejudice the jury. Cf. Clark v. City of Los Angeles, 650 F.2d 1033, 1038 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 927, 102 S.Ct. 1974,
holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative holding that overwhelming evidence of element of crime rendered miranda error harmless when improperly admitted statement went to same element holding that a diary was improperly admitted when it went far beyond other evidence properly brought forth in the case and was a heavily emotive document that did not simply relate factual occurrences holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless