053987P.pdf   10/25/2010  Stephen Danforth  v.  David Crist
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  05-3987
   U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis   
   [PUBLISHED] [Bye, Author, with Chief Judge Riley and Melloy,
   Circuit Judges]
   Habeas Case - confrontation clause. Under Supreme Court decision in
   Whorton v. Bockting, Crawford v. Washington does not apply
   retroactively, as Danforth's case was final on direct appeal when
   Crawford opinion was rendered. Trial court did not unreasonably
   interpret pre-Crawford law regarding admissibility of minor's videotaped
   statement in criminal sexual conduct case because trial court found
   statement bore particularized guarantees of trustworthiness and thus was
   sufficiently reliable. Danforth cannot show a clearly established right to
   be present when a videotaped statement is made under federal law and
   thus did not show admission of statement contradicted federal law. The
   finding of minor's incompetence did not clearly and convincingly prove
   the videotaped statement lacked trustworthiness and thus the trial court
   did not make an unreasonable determination of the facts.