of evidence are cognizable in federal habeas corpus review only to the extent that they violate specific constitutional provisions or are so egregious as to render the entire trial fundamentally unfair, thereby violating the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67-68, 112 S.Ct. 475, 479-80, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991); Spencer v. Murray, 5 F.3d 758, 762 (4th Cir.1993). First, we note that Howard's confessions, although transcribed by Agent Battle and Lieutenant Hitchins from their notes of their respective reports, were neither written by Howard, signed by Howard, tape-recorded, nor introduced into evidence in written form. Therefore, we question whether the rule of completeness even applies to this case. See Wilkerson, 84 F.3d at 696 (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, even if the rule were to apply,
holding that the trial court properly refused to suppress statements made by defendant to the police on the ground that the interrogation resulting in those statements was not electronically recorded since  there is no federal or state due process requirement that interrogations and confessions be electronically recorded  holding that the rule of completeness applies only to writings or recorded statements not to conversations holding that rule of completeness did not apply where statements made at the scene and the statement made at the police station were  distinct and not part of one confession holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements recognizing public or official writings exception and noting that the same rule prevails in the courts of all of the states of this union