Suddeth

MEMORANDUM *

The district court properly denied California state prisoner Suddeth’s federal petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We need not decide whether the interrogation was conducted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), or Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). The testimony as to the threats Suddeth made to the officer during the interrogation was admissible under Miranda. United States v. Mitchell, 812 F.2d 1250, 1253-54 (9th Cir.1987) overruled on other grounds by Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. v. Am. Coalition of Life Activists, 290 F.3d 1058, 1066-70 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc). Even assuming, without deciding, that the interrogation was conducted in violation of Miranda , admission of the remainder of the testimony concerning the interrogation was harmless because it did not have 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…