Morris

MEMORANDUM *

Morris’s severance motion is essentially a Bruton 1 argument that, had his case been severed, he would have avoided the prejudicial testimony of Ramirez (a jailhouse informant) about what Knighten (Morris’s co-defendant) allegedly said out of court. But Knighten took the stand and was subject to cross examination. Morris is correct that Knighten’s testimony on the stand (that Knighten acted alone and never discussed the killing in the presence of Ramirez) made it especially difficult to use impeachment of Knighten to challenge Ramirez’s testimony. But, for his claim to succeed, Morris must demonstrate that the state courts acted contrary to or unreasonably applied a decision of the United States Supreme Court. 2 He cannot. The confrontation clause is not implicated when a declarant is available for cross-examination about hearsay statements.

Morris’s argument that the trial court erroneously denied a peremptory challenge, because of overly aggressive application of Batson, 4 cannot withstand the deference we are required to accord to the state court determinations of fact.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent…