Hernandez Anzures v. Smith

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner, Arthur Hernandez Anzures, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment rights were not violated by the admission of testimony from Winn and Aragon. Under Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 , 110 S.Ct. 2394 , 110 L.Ed.2d 243 (1990), questioning by an undercover government agent does not constitute a “custodial interrogation.” Therefore, the rule in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), that custodial interrogation must cease once a defendant has invoked his right to counsel does not apply in this case. See United States v. Stubbs, 944 F.2d 828, 832 (11th Cir.1991).

The Sixth Amendment issue presents a closer question. Even assuming, however, that Petitioner has shown that the admission of Jackson’s testimony violated the Sixth Amendment, he has not *969 shown that it had a “substantial and injurious effect” on the outcome of the case. See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993). Given the other evidence introduced at trial, including Petitioner’s…