Stumpf

MEMORANDUM *

We reject the seven grounds for 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas relief urged by *21 Stumpf.

First, the introduction of grand jury testimony that was later determined to be perjury did not violate Stumpfs right to due process. Because the right to a grand jury has not been applied to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, see Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 499 , 120 S.Ct. 2348 , 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (citing Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516, 538 , 4 S.Ct. 111 , 28 L.Ed. 232 (1884)), Stumpfs Fifth Amendment challenge to the grand jury proceedings does not raise a question of federal law and is not cognizable on habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Second, Stumpf failed to demonstrate that the trial court’s limitations on cross-examination, which prohibited Stumpfs attorney from asking questions concerning prior bad acts without an evidentiary basis for his good-faith belief that the inquiry was proper, violated his Fifth Amendment rights.

Third, the introduction of out-of-court statements by Stumpfs co-conspirator did not violate Stumpfs right to confront witnesses against him. The statements contested by Stumpf were either admissible under the…