present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent,” Id. at 176, 106 S.Ct. 477, and that such “incriminating statements pertaining to pending charges are inadmissible at the trial of those charges.” Id. at 180, 106 S.Ct. 477. Without deciding whether Moulton was violated, we conclude that Lester has failed to show that the introduction of the statements had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 755 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 687, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)). The tainted evidence was merely “in effect, cumulative” of other “weighty” evidence that indubitably influenced the jury. Brecht, 507 U.S. at 639, 113 S.Ct. 1710; see also Moses, 555 F.3d at 755 (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. *** This disposition is not
holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding although admission of victim impact testimony was error it was harmless in light of strong evidence against defendant holding that error from the erroneous admission of evidence was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendants guilt holding that in light of strong evidence of guilt tainted evidence was harmless under brecht