Opinion ID: 612017
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Denial of Fair Trial by Impartial Jury

Text: 14 Wilkinson contends that he was denied a fair trial because the state attempted to give the jury the impression that he was being tried for sex offenses, instead of burglary and assault. In particular, Wilkinson points to (1) testimony by police-officer witnesses that they were assigned to a sex-crime unit, (2) Officer Turner's testimony that Wilkinson's fly was open when he stepped out of his truck on the night the crimes occurred, (3) admission of evidence regarding the previous open-fly incident involving [Wilkinson] near the Aboud residence, (4) testimony that the residents of the nearby apartment complex where the windows were broken were female university students, and (5) the giving of a jury instruction defining the elements of rape. 15 Habeas relief may be granted on the basis of improper evidentiary rulings or jury instructions only when such errors render the state proceeding so fundamentally unfair as to violate due process. Estelle v. McGuire, 112 S.Ct. 475, 482 (1991) (jury instructions); Middleton v. Cupp, 768 F.2d 1083, 1085 (9th Cir.1985) (admission of evidence), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021 (1986). Wilkinson has failed to demonstrate either that any of the evidentiary rulings or jury instructions were erroneous, or that any alleged error rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. Therefore, his claim for habeas relief fails.