Saechao

MEMORANDUM **

Chio Hang Saechao, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his jury conviction for robbery. He claims that his Confrontation Clause rights were violated when the trial court admitted a tape-recorded statement by a non-testifying co-defendant made during a jailhouse telephone call to a friend. Because the state courts’ denial of this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law and because the state courts’ determination of the facts was not unreasonable based on the evidence presented to it, we affirm. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(l)-(2).

Saechao argues that the admission of the statement violated Cranford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 , 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). However, Crawford applies only to “testimonial” evidence. Id. at 68 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . The Oregon Court of Appeals characterized Gleason’s statements as casual, off-hand remarks that were not “testimonial.”

This holding was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Crawford, which does not apply to “an off-hand, overheard remark.” Id. at 51 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . There is no evidence in the…