MEMORANDUM *
Petitioner-appellant Antonio Harris appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging his California conviction for first-degree murder with a robbery-murder special circumstance, Cal.Penal Code § 190.2(d). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Harris claims that his constitutional right to present a complete defense to the special circumstance allegation was violated by the trial court’s denial of his severance motion and exclusion of two of his three pretrial statements to the police.1 The exclusion of Harris’s first two statements to the police did not result in prejudice great enough to render the trial “fundamentally unfair.” See Grisby v. Blodgett, 130 F.3d 365, 370 (9th Cir.1997). Contrary to Harris’s assertion, nothing in the third statement suggests that Harris was the shooter or implies that Harris knew that co-defendant Eric Lockhart was armed.2
Even if there were error, the trial court’s decision to try Harris and Lockhart jointly and admit only Harris’s third statement did not have a ‘“substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.’ ” Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir.2010) (quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993)), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 338, 181 L.Ed.2d 212 (2011). The excluded statements would not have provided an adequate defense to the special circumstance allegation. If anything, they actually would have supported the finding of guilt. There was sufficient evidence in the record as a whole to justify the jury’s verdict, and the admission of Harris’s other two statements would not have altered the result.
AFFIRMED.