Khan
Khan v. Mueller
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Mohammed Khan, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his conviction for robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
Khan contends the prosecution committed misconduct in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), in two respects. We disagree. Khan first argues that the prosecution failed to disclose the criminal background of a prosecution witness, specifically, the fact that the witness was on juvenile probation and faced criminal charges at the time of trial. As Khan concedes, no prejudice resulted because the trial court became aware of the witness’s criminal background before defense counsel’s closing arguments and permitted counsel to re-examine the witness on this basis. Thus, the failure to disclose did not put the case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict, see Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 290 , 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999), because the jury was made aware of that witness’s criminal background.