Jelks

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Jelks appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. We affirm the judgment of the district court.

Because Jelks’s petition was filed after April 24, 1996, the amendments to U.S.C. § 2254 under the Antiterrorism and Effecfive Death Penalty Act apply. Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir.2000), ce rt. denied, 531 U.S. 944 , 121 S.Ct. 340 , 148 L.Ed.2d 274 (2000).

A state court’s error in applying a state rule can have constitutional implications where a fundamental element of due process is violated. See e.g., Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). The erroneous exclusion of critical, corroborative defense evidence may violate both the Fifth and the Sixth Amendments. Id. at 294 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 . The accused, however, is not guaranteed the right to present all evidence, but only that admissible under standard rules of evidence. Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 42-13, 52 , 116 S.Ct. 2013 , 135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996).

Although some judges would have admitted the gunshot residue test results and allowed the jury to decide the credibility of the Jelks’s self-defense justification, the…