Bockorny

MEMORANDUM *

Randy Bockorny appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition, which alleged constitutionally ineffective assistance of trial counsel. We affirm. *420 Because the facts are familiar to the parties, we recount them only as necessary to explain our decision.

A. Standard of Review

We review de novo the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Wildman v. Johnson, 261 F.3d 832, 836 (9th Cir.2001). Mr. Bockorny may be accorded habeas relief only if the state court unreasonably applied the law concerning ineffective assistance of counsel established by the Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

B. Evaluation of Counsel’s Performance

Mr. Bockorny’s trial counsel hired a well-eredentialed pathologist, an appropriate kind of expert, to analyze and testify concerning the laboratory analysis issues in this case. The pathologist informed the jury that protozoa are ubiquitous in river water, that protozoa are similar in size and appearance to spermatozoa, and that the two can easily be confused. Mr. Bockorny now argues that trial counsel erred by not hiring a…