Preciado

concurring:

I concur. I note, however, that the only portion of Preciado’s statement that was admitted was that which preceded his invocation of his right to counsel.

MEMORANDUM *

Thomas Preciado appeals from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his convictions for murder, second degree robbery, and second degree burglary. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and review the district court’s denial of the petition de novo. See DeWeaver v. Runnels, 556 F.3d 995, 997 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.

The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply federal law when it affirmed the trial court’s denial of discovery of malpractice-related hospital records. There is no clearly established federal right to compel pretrial discovery in a situation like Preciado’s, particularly since the discovery he requested would not have provided him with a defense under California law and the trial judge left open the possibility of in camera review of the records. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 53, 64-65 , 107 S.Ct. 989 , 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987); see also Wood v. Alaska, 957 F.2d 1544, 1549 (9th Cir.1992) (“A defendant has no right ... to present irrelevant evidence.”).

It was likewise reasonable for the California Court of Appeal to hold that limiting Preciado’s cross-examination of Ms.…