With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946)); Kennedy v. Lockyer, 379 F.3d 1041, 1054 (9th Cir.2004) (noting Brecht applies to post-AEDPA cases). When there is “‘a reasonable possibility that the extrinsic material could have affected the verdict,’ ” a defendant is entitled to a new trial. United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.2005) (citations omitted). The district court correctly concluded that Davis was not entitled to federal habeas relief on this claim. The sound Mrs. Mecchi made was cumulative of the testimony Davis’s attorney elicited from Mr. Mecchi at trial, as he had imitated Mrs. Mecchi making the same noise. See United States v. Prime, 431 F.3d 1147, 1157-58 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); Hughes v. Borg, 898 F.2d 695, 700-01 (9th

A: holding that juror access to several exhibits that had not been admitted into evidence was not prejudicial as they were cumulative of trial testimony
B: holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
C: holding the exclusion of cumulative evidence was not prejudicial error
D: holding improperly admitted evidence may be harmless if cumulative
A.