Radford

MEMORANDUM *

James Duane Radford appeals the denial of his petition for habeas corpus, asserting that four statements made by the prosecution in his trial improperly commented upon his decision not to testify, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. We affirm. 1 Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

“In Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965), the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment forbids prosecutorial comment on a defendant’s decision not to testify.” United States v. Mayans, 17 F.3d 1174, 1185 (9th Cir.1994). “A prosecutorial statement is impermissible if it is manifestly intended to call attention to the defendant’s failure to testify, or is of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure to testify.” Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

1. The prosecutor made the following statement during closing argument:

By arguing that only Radford could provide evidence on this aspect of the critical issue of whether he completed a substantial step towards the murder, the prosecutor “naturally and…