Subana

MEMORANDUM *

Jefry Subana appeals the district court’s denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2258. We review the district court’s denial of Subana’s habeas petition de novo. See Gill v. Ayers, 342 F.3d 911, 917 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we will not recount it here.

1. Subana was not denied due process and a fair trial by the admission at trial of testimony from a witness who initially gave the police a false alibi for Subana, but recanted after police played her a tape of Subana’s involuntary confession. The California Court of Appeal held that the witness’s initial recantation may have been the fruit of Subana’s involuntary confession, but her trial testimony occurred three years later, and the passage of time attenuated the taint.

The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine generally prohibits the admission at trial of evidence, both physical and verbal, that is derived from illegal government acts. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 598 , 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975) (citing Wong Sun v.…