Pachl

MEMORANDUM **

Oregon prisoner Randol Lawrence Pachl (“Pachl”) appeals the judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in which he claimed he was denied effective assistance of counsel in his state court murder conviction.

Because Pachl filed his petition after April 24, 1996, it is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AED-PA”). See Jeffries v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1484, 1499 (9th Cir.1997) (en banc); La Crosse v. Kernan, 244 F.3d 702 , 704 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2001)). Under the relevant provision of AEDPA, a federal court may grant relief only if the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal *679 law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

The district court found as a matter of fact that Pachl’s state court trial counsel had failed to timely object to the presence of a group of courtroom visitors wearing lapel buttons marked “CVU” in large letters and the words “Crime Victims United” in smaller letters. While the district court agreed with the petitioner that defense counsel should have brought the matter to the trial…