Case ID: f-appx_114/html/0887-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert L. BINFORD, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. John LAMBERT, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 03-35201.
    D.C. No. CV-00-05271-FDB.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.
    
    Decided Dec. 10, 2004.
    Robert L. Binford, CBCC — Clallam Bay Corrections Center, Clallam Bay, WA, pro se.
    John Joseph Samson, Alex A. Kostin, AGWA — Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding.
    Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Robert L. Binford appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his convictions for first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, taking a motor vehicle without permission and attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Binford contends that certain statements made by the prosecution, which called into question the veracity of Bin-ford’s statements to a polygraph examiner, constituted comments on his failure to testify at trial, in violation of his right against self-incrimination. We disagree. The prosecutor’s comments were not manifestly intended to call attention to the defendant’s failure to testify, or of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be a comment on the failure to testify. See Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 809 (9th Cir.1987). Moreover, the comments occurred in a single isolated incident, and in direct response to defense counsel’s use of the same statements to the polygraph examiner.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.