Sousa

MEMORANDUM **

Washington state prisoners Gerald and Julie Sousa jointly appeal pro se the district court’s denial of their 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging their jury trial convictions for second degree felony murder. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The Sousas contend that they were denied a fair trial when the prosecutor implied that either they or their trial counsel had attempted to bribe a witness. To warrant habeas relief, prosecutorial misconduct must “so infeet[] 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)). Here, any prejudice resulting from the prosecutor’s remarks was cured by a thorough curative instruction. See Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 , 766 n. 8, 107 S.Ct. 3102 , 97 L.Ed.2d 618 (1987) (finding that the Court “normally presume[s] that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it”). Accordingly, the Washington state court’s determination that the statements did…