Davis

MEMORANDUM *

The petitioner appeals the denial of his habeas petition by the district court. Because the facts are familiar to the parties involved, we recount them only so far as necessary to explain our decision.

1. The state trial court did not commit a constitutional violation by failing to order the identity of the “88-Crime” witness revealed. There is therefore no confrontation clause problem.

No evidence from the hotline caller was used against Davis at trial. Further, Davis has not shown that had the information been revealed, there was “[a] reasonable probability of a different result.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 434 , 115 S.Ct. 1555 , 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). So the fact that the information was withheld does not “undermin[e] confidence in the outcome of the trial.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The only evidence likely to emerge from the 88-Crime witness would have been evidence that Davis was or was not at the crime scene at or near the time of the crime. Because Davis already admits that he was present at the scene around the time of the murder, such information could not have affected the verdict.

2. There was no…