Marcus Ruben Ellington v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden

17 F.3d 394 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Marcus Ruben ELLINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 93-55072. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 7, 1994. * Decided Feb. 14, 1994. Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Marcus Ellington, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 petition for habeas corpus. Ellington claims that his involuntary statements were erroneously admitted at trial, and that the jury should have been instructed that it could not rely on these statements. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 , and review de novo. Thomas v. Lewis, 945 F.2d 1119, 1122 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm. Involuntary Statements 3 "Statements volunteered by a suspect in custody are admissible despite the absence of Miranda warnings if they are free from interrogation or other coercion."…