Did the Eleventh Circuit improperly determine that the Prosecution's pattern of deliberate and egregious improper comments in closing arguments did not satisfy Brecht's 'unusual case' exception?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under Brecht v. Abrahamson, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless a constitutional error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993). But “in an unusual case, a deliberate and especially egregious error of the trial type, or one that is combined with a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, might so infect the integrity of the proceeding as to warrant the grant of habeas relief, even if it did not substantially influence the jury’s verdict.” Jd. at 638 n.9 (citation omitted). Here, every reviewing court has held the Prosecution deliberately violated Mr. Al-Amin’s Fifth Amendment rights when it engaged in a lengthy “mock crossexamination” of him during closing arguments. The Eleventh Circuit and the district court also agreed the Prosecution engaged in further misconduct by telling the jury “[dJon’t stand for him,” a “patently improper” comment on Mr. Al-Amin’s religiously based decision not to stand when the judge or jury entered the courtroom. And the court of appeals found Mr. Al-Amin presented a “substantial defense,” with the district court cataloging the evidence that could have supported acquittal and describing the crime scene evidence as a “mishmash of inconsistencies.” But the courts below still denied habeas relief under Brecht. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Eleventh Circuit, which stated its “regret” for being unable to “provide Mr. Al-Amin relief in the face of the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred at trial,” u improperly determine that the Prosecution’s pattern of deliberate and egregious improper comments in closing arguments did not satisfy Brecht’s “unusual case” exception? 2. Did the Eleventh Circuit improperly excuse the Prosecution’s Fifth Amendment violations as “harmless error” under Brecht? RULE 14.1(b)Gii) STATEMENT This case challenges the same criminal conviction as the following actions: In State v. Al-Amin, No. 00-SC-03563 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty.), the jury returned a guilty verdict on March 9, 2002, and Mr. Al-Amin was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on March 13, 2002. The state trial court denied Mr. Al-Amin’s amended motion for new trial on July 2, 2003. The Georgia Supreme Court issued its opinion in the direct appeal affirming the verdict and sentence on May 24, 2004. Al-Amin v. State, No. S04A0151 (Ga.). This Court denied Mr. Al-Amin’s petition for a writ of certiorari in his direct appeal on November 15, 2004. Al-Amin v. Georgia, No. 04-6606, 543 U.S. 992. InAl-Amin v. Smith, No. 2005-HC-66 (Ga. Super. Ct., Tattnall Cty.), the state court denied Mr. Al-Amin’s state habeas petition by Final Order entered on July 28, 2007. The Georgia Supreme Court denied Mr. Al-Amin’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the denial of his state habeas petition on May 7, 2012. No. $12H0007 (Ga.). Mr. Al-Amin filed his federal habeas petition in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (where he was incarcerated at the time), but that Court transferred the habeas action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on May 15, w 2012. Al-Amin v. Davis, No. 1:12-cv-01197-BNB, 2012 WL 1698175 (D. Colo.). The magistrate judge in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia issued a Report and Recommendation and Final Order in Mr. Al-Amin’s federal habeas action on May 24, 2016. The district court judge issued an Order overruling Mr. Al-Amin’s objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and denying his habeas petition on September 29, 2017. Al-Amin v. Shartle, No. 12-CV-1688-AT-GGB (N.D. Ga.). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mr. AlAmin’s habeas petition on July 31, 2019. Al-Amin v. Warden, No. 17-14865 (11th Cir.). Mr. Al-Amin has filed a successive state habeas action, presenting a Brady claim based