opinion, at least one juror would have given far greater weight to the opinions of Dr. Maiuro with respect to the question whether Brown’s mental disorder and the lack of lithium should be considered to constitute a mitigating factor. IV. Cumulative Error The three aspects of counsel’s deficient performance, viewed together, should undermine one’s confidence in the outcome of the penalty phase. Multiple errors, even if harmless individually, may entitle a petitioner to habeas relief if their cumulative effect prejudiced the defendant. Mak v. Blodgett, 970 F.2d 614, 622 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 951, 113 S.Ct. 1363, 122 L.Ed.2d 742 (1993); see also United States v. Tucker, 716 F.2d 576, 595 (9th Cir.1983); Cooper v. Fitzharris, 586 F.2d 1325, 1333 (9th Cir.1978) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). Defense counsel’s errors resulted in the
holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative holding that any deficiency in failure to object to hearsay did not prejudice defendant when testimony was cumulative of other evidence holding that an assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice holding that prejudice may result from the cumulative impact of multiple deficiencies holding that the exclusion of cumulative evidence did not materially impact defendants right to present a defense