Sean Ward v. Charles Ryan

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner Sean Patrick Ward appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus. He raises one certified issue and several un-certified issues.

Ward argues first that the prosecutor made three remarks during closing argument that constituted prosecutorial misconduct and resulted in a denial of due process. We may not grant relief unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). The state court’s decision was neither. The misconduct must have “so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.” Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 , 106 S.Ct. 2464 , 91 L.Ed.2d 144 (1986) (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 , 94 S.Ct. 1868 , 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The first remark was merely a criticism of the defense strategy and an admonition to consider all of the evidence, which is not improper. See United States v. Sayetsitty, 107 F.3d 1405, 1409 (9th Cir.1997) (“Criticism of defense theories and tactics is a proper subject of closing…