How have the courts dealt with the issue of error in a sexual assault case?

Even were petitioner to succeed on his assertions that each area addressed above amounted to error, he fails to show that the total effect of those errors impacted the verdict. As described above, the prosecution's case was strong and supported by interviews and testimony of the victims, corroborating testimony from others, and petitioner's conduct after his behavior was revealed to adults. Even if petitioner's claims all amounted to errors, the cumulative effect of those errors did not render petitioner's trial fundamentally unfair because petitioner fails to establish that the prejudice from each error was anything more than negligible. See Parle v. Runnels, 505 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2007).

Because petitioner fails to meet the standards set out in 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) by showing the state courts' decisions on his claims were contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, this court need not reach petitioner's request for an evidentiary hearing under 2254(e)(2). See Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 186 (2011) ("Section 2254(e)(2) continues to have force where 2254(d)(1) does not bar federal habeas relief.").