as discussed above, Tapia’s allegations as to the content of the tape, if proven, would not entitle him to relief, he is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. See Turner, 63 F.3d at 815. We further find that the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on the contents of the tape was not an abuse of discretion. See Villafuerte, 111 F.3d at 633. AFFIRMED. 2 . This circuit has never ruled on Tapia’s contention that Chapman review should be used on habeas review when no state court has tested error with Chapman review, see Hanna, 87 F.3d at 1038 n. 2 (refusing to reach the issue), but other circuits are split, with the Eighth Circuit and arguably the Second Circuit taking the minority position argued by Tapia. See Orndorff v. Lockhart, 998 F.2d 1426 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Lyons v. Johnson, 99 F.3d 499 (2d Cir.1996)
recognizing that the state court need not explicitly rely on chapman to warrant federal review under brecht but not deciding the issue because the error was also harmless under chapman holding that chapman harmless error review will be conducted when error is tested for harmlessness for the first time on habeas holding that the courts review is conducted under the plain error standard holding that a federal habeas court performing a harmless error inquiry on collateral review must employ the standard for harmless error articulated in brecht even if the state courts have never reviewed the error on direct appeal holding that chapman mandates harmless error analysis of griffin error