occurred in the manner described. Robinson counters that admission of Special Agent Starmer’s testimony was not harmless, despite its cumulative nature, because the testimony “shore[d] up the credibility of Winfrey.” This is not a case, however, “where that extra helping of evidence [is] so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial.” United States v. Bercier, 506 F.3d 625, 633 (8th Cir.2007) (quoting United States v. Ramos-Cardballo, 375 F.3d 797, 804 (8th Cir.2004)). Special Agent Starmer merely echoed non-inculpatory tidbits of Winfrey’s comprehensive, detailed, and unobjected-to account of the seizure in Oklahoma. Moreover, Winfrey’s testimony was independently supported by Ousley, whose statements likewise failed to educe an objection on hearsay grounds. See White, 11 F.3d at 1451 (<HOLDING>); cf. United States v. Kenyon, 397 F.3d 1071,
holding that admission of hearsay testimony was harmless where the jury heard admissible testimony from three other sources to the same effect holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses holding that error in admission of videotape was harmless because it was cumulative of childs properly admitted live testimony holding that the court erroneously admitted hearsay testimony from adults concerning a childs statements to them regarding her fathers sexual abuse holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas