Whether the state court's harmless error determination was unreasonable under 28-U.S.C-2254(d)(1)-and-(2)

QUESTION PRESENTED Mr. Cortinas is a state prisoner litigating a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254. At his murder trial, the State presented a premeditation and deliberation theory, along with a felony murder theory. The felony murder theory was legally erroneous and produced federal constitutional error, as everyone agrees here. The only issue in these proceedings is whether the error was harmless. The state supreme court concluded on direct appeal the error was harmless because the evidence of premeditation and deliberation was supposedly overwhelming. That holding was unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) & (2). After the crime, Mr. Cortinas gave a full confession to the police with many damaging details, but he insisted the murder wasn’t planned; he merely lashed out. Any fairminded jurist would agree the confession provided sufficient evidence for a rational juror to find reasonable doubt about premeditation and deliberation. See Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 19 (1999). Mr. Cortinas also argued the constitutional error was harmful under federal collateral review standards. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993). The Ninth Circuit below erroneously rejected these arguments. This term, the Court is considering Brown v. Davenport, No. 20-826, which involves how Section 2254(d) and Brecht apply when a state court, as here, finds a federal constitutional error to be harmless. The question presented is: Should the Court hold this petition pending disposition of Brown v. Davenport, No. 20-826, which will likely address how 28 U.S.C. §2254(d) and Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), apply when a state court finds a federal constitutional error to be harmless? i