Jeremy Puckett v. Robert Gower

MEMORANDUM

Jeremy Puckett (“Puckett”) appeals the denial of his habeas petition challenging California jury convictions for robbery and special circumstance murder. We affirm, concluding that the California Court of Appeal’s decisions — (1) that alleged prose-cutorial misconduct in the opening statement did not deprive Puckett of due process; and (2) that limitations the trial court set on Puckett’s cross-examination of the prosecution’s key witness Israel Sept (“Sept”) did not violate' due process or Puckett’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation — constituted objectively reasonable applications of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Prosecutorial misconduct merits habeas relief only if it “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process,” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A jury is also presumed to follow a curative instruction unless there is an “overwhelming probability that [it] will be unable” to do so and “a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be devastating to the…