Paonessa

MEMORANDUM **

1. The Riggio interview does not give rise to a due process violation as a prosecutor may, consistent with due process, attempt to convince a co-defendant to accept a plea deal and testify for the state. Nor was there a Brady violation, as the interview notes and the tape recording of the interview were turned over during trial and petitioner has not alleged them to contain exculpatory or impeaching material. Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 281- *393 82, 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). Failure to comply with California state discovery disclosure requirements is not an appropriate basis for federal habeas relief. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68 , 112 S.Ct. 475 , 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). Questioning by Riggio’s counsel that minimized his client’s involvement and implicated the other co-defendants is an expected strategy in a multiple-defendant case and does not give rise to a due process violation. Since Riggio ultimately decided not to testify, it was not objectively unreasonable for the California courts to find no prejudice from the failure to make timely…