Adcock

MEMORANDUM *

We affirm the district court’s denial of Adcock’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. We recognize that, as in People v. Swain, 12 Cal.4th 593, 596 , 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 390 , 909 P.2d 994 (1996), some possibility of confusion existed with respect to the instructions on conspiracy to commit murder because the jury was not instructed it had to find the specific intent to kill. However, the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply the Brecht harmless error standard to the facts of this case. Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) (question regarding prejudice is whether error “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining jury’s verdict”); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 411 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (“[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly. Rather, that application must also be unreasonable.”).

Unlike Swain , in which the prosecution repeatedly referred to implied malice to support the murder conviction,…