Binford
Binford v. Lambert
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Washington state prisoner Robert L. Binford appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, taking a motor vehicle without permission and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
Binford contends that certain statements made by the prosecution, which *888 called into question the veracity of Bin-ford’s statements to a polygraph examiner, constituted comments on his failure to testify at trial, in violation of his right against self-incrimination. We disagree. The prosecutor’s comments were not manifestly intended to call attention to the defendant’s failure to testify, or of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure to testify. See Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 809 (9th Cir.1987). Moreover, the comments occurred in a single isolated incident, and in direct response to defense counsel’s use of the same statements to the polygraph examiner.