Bradberry
Bradberry v. Stewart
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Patrick Neal Bradberry appeals pro se the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
First, Bradberry contends that he was denied a fair trial due to juror misconduct. However, Bradberry failed to demonstrate that he was actually prejudiced by the alleged misconduct, in light of the fact that the jury was admonished and the juror was excused as an alternate. See Anderson v. Calderon, 232 F.3d 1053, 1098 (9th Cir.2000), overruled on other grounds by Osband v. Woodford, 290 F.3d 1036, 1039 (9th Cir.2002).
Second, Bradberry contends that he was incompetent to stand trial. However, the record demonstrates that the state court’s decision was fairly supported. See Maggio v. Fulford, 462 U.S. 111, 117 , 103 S.Ct. 2261 , 76 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983) (per curiam).
Third, Bradberry contends that he was denied his right to confrontation when one victim did not testify. However, Brad-berry failed to demonstrate that any testimonial statements by that victim were used at trial. See Crawford v. Washing *376 ton, 541 U.S. 36, 59-60 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004).