Verdugo

MEMORANDUM **

Jaime Anaya Verdugo appeals the district court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. *768 § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his 1994 conviction for murder in the second degree, with use of a firearm. We affirm.

(1) Verdugo asserts that excluding a hearsay statement by a witness denied him due process. We do not sit to decide whether the statement was properly excluded as a matter of state law. See Whelchel v. Washington, 232 F.3d 1197, 1211 (9th Cir.2000); see also Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 , 112 S.Ct. 475, 479-80 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). However, Verdugo argues that the statement should have been admitted in any event. We disagree. We cannot say that the statement was so probative, reliable, and unique that the need for it overbalanced the state’s interest in excluding it. The constitution was not violated when it was excluded. See Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 530 (9th Cir.1990); see also Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 96-97 , 99 S.Ct. 2150, 2151 , 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979); Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284, 298-300 , 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1047-48 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973).

(2) Verdugo next claims that the state should have been sanctioned…