With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". present in a confrontation between the accused and a state agent,” Id. at 176, 106 S.Ct. 477, and that such “incriminating statements pertaining to pending charges are inadmissible at the trial of those charges.” Id. at 180, 106 S.Ct. 477. Without deciding whether Moulton was violated, we conclude that Lester has failed to show that the introduction of the statements had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d 742, 755 (9th Cir.2009) (citing Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 687, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)). The tainted evidence was merely “in effect, cumulative” of other “weighty” evidence that indubitably influenced the jury. Brecht, 507 U.S. at 639, 113 S.Ct. 1710; see also Moses, 555 F.3d at 755 (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. *** This disposition is not

A: holding that in light of strong evidence of guilt tainted evidence was harmless under brecht
B: holding although admission of victim impact testimony was error it was harmless in light of strong evidence against defendant
C: holding the error harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt
D: holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt
A.