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." Id. 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 cross-examination" of him during closing arguments. The Eleventh Circuit and the district court also agreed the Prosecution engaged in further misconduct by telling the jury "[d]on'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.

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," 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?

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?