Fry

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Philip Fry appeals from a district court order denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus following his conviction in California state court for, inter alia, first-degree murder.

Fry contends that he is entitled to habeas relief on the ground that his Miranda rights were violated by the admission of his videotaped confession. Such a violation warrants habeas relief only where the error had a “substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 , 113 S.Ct. 1710 , 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776 , 66 S.Ct. 1239 , 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946). While his rights unquestionably were aggrieved by the authorities’ clandestine tactics, the jury’s access to his identical confession to Jackson and Brown militates against the conclusion that the videotape had a “substantial and injurious effect” on their verdict. Thus, habeas relief is unwarranted.

Fry argues that habeas relief is appropriate based on the ineffective assistance rendered by his counsel, who failed to object to the testimony of a government informant. Habeas relief may lie for ineffective…