Lovett

MEMORANDUM *

Edwin Arnold Lovett appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. *810 § 2254 petition challenging his 1996 jury conviction for second degree murder and personal use of a deadly weapon. We affirm.

Lovett first contends that the admission of audio taped police interviews of Lea Lachenauer rendered his trial so fundamentally unfair as to violate due process. The tapes consisted of approximately three hours of questioning by police detectives. We conclude that Lea’s statements did not infect the entire trial with unfairness because they were cumulative of other evidence in the record and the facts asserted were already known by the jury. See Jammal v. Van de Kamp, 926 F.2d 918, 919 (9th Cir.1991) (holding that habeas relief is warranted only if the improper admission of “evidence so fatally infected the proceedings as to render them fundamentally unfair”). Lovett also challenges the questions posed to Lea by the police detectives, but in light of the limiting instruction, there was no constitutional error. See Dubria v. Smith, 224 F.3d 995, 1001-02 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).

Lovett next contends that the admission of the out of court statements made by…