Wood v. Ercole, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9108

Wood was convicted of first-degree murder for hiring Rasheen Harry to kill Carlisle Hall, with Wood’s videotaped statement a central piece of evidence.
Wood invoked his right to counsel during interrogation; after an initial waiver, police continued and produced a video confession.
New York appellate and district courts held the videotaped statement admissible but harmless; Wood sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The prosecution’s case rested largely on Harry’s and Bernard’s credibility, with Wood’s statement tying together their accounts.
The Second Circuit reversed the district court, held the Edwards violation warranted relief, and remanded for writ of habeas corpus unless state grants a new trial; the dissent would have denied relief on harmlessness grounds.
The majority applies Fry v. Pliler and Brecht to assess harmlessness and concludes the error was not harmless; the dissent disagrees on this assessment and on the strength of the remaining evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admitting Wood’s videotaped statement after an unambiguous request for counsel violated Edwards.	Wood (plaintiff) argues Edwards violation occurred and tainted the trial.	Ercole (defendant) contends the invocation was ambiguous and did not trigger Edwards.	Yes, violation established; admission reversed.
Whether the Edwards violation was harmless under Brecht after Fry.	The error had substantial influence given the statement’s central role.	The remaining strong corroborating evidence made the error harmless.	Not harmless; reversal warranted.

Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (unambiguous invocation of right to counsel required interrogation to stop)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (protects right to counsel during custodial interrogation ( Edwards rule))
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007) (breathes life into Brecht for § 2254 review; Brecht governs harmlessness regardless of state review)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (harmless error standard for habeas review; substantial and injurious effect on verdict)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (unambiguous invocation of counsel when evaluated; ambiguous phrases insufficient)
Montjo v. Louisiana, U.S. (2010) (discusses application of right to counsel)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (establishes rights during custodial interrogation)
Zappulla v. New York, 391 F.3d 462 (2004) (harmlessness factors; 'fill in missing link' concept)
Perkins v. Herbert, 596 F.3d 161 (2010) (harmlessness framework in post-AEDPA habeas review)
Wray v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 515 (2000) (assessing strength of the remaining evidence and impact of wrongly admitted evidence)
Latine v. Mann, 25 F.3d 1162 (1994) (strength of the prosecution’s case as key factor in harmless error)