Whether a habeas court must apply Brecht harmless-error analysis to Giglio/Napue claims intertwined in a proceeding marred by a pattern of egregious prosecutorial misconduct

QUESTION PRESENTED More than 30 years ago, this Court held that the Kotteakos! substantial and injurious influence harmless-error standard applies in habeas cases raising constitutional trial error. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993). However, this Court left open “the possibility that 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. Cf. Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756, 769 [] (1987) (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment).” Brecht, 507 U.S. at 638, n. 9. Since then, nine federal courts of appeals have issued conflicting rulings on whether Brecht’s harmless-error standard applies to claims of constitutional trial error in cases marred by a pattern of prosecutorial misconduct, and another has wavered on the question without determining an answer. This Petition presents an ideal vehicle to resolve an entrenched circuit split and answer Brecht’s open question: Whether a habeas court must apply Brecht harmless-error analysis to Giglio/Napue? claims intertwined in a proceeding marred by a pattern of egregious prosecutorial misconduct. 1 Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S, 750 (1946). 2 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). i