when Judge Welch refused to compel the victim to testily at the hearing on Petitioner’s motion for new trial. In short, Petitioner has not proven that he is being confined in violation of his rights under the Constitution of the United States. For these reasons, the court recommends that Petitioner’s request for a writ of habeas corpus be DENIED. 1 . Petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus on September 2, 1997, well after the April 24, 1996 effective date of the AEDPA. Hence, Petitioner's petition is reviewed under the standards set forth therein. See Vasquez v. DiPaolo, No. Civ. 96-12261-PBS, 1998 WL 428012 at *1 n. 1 (D.Mass. July 23, 1998); Restrepo v. Dipaolo, 1 F.Supp.2d 103, 105 n. 1 (1998). See generally Martin v. Bissonette, 118 F.3d 871, 874 (1st Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 2 . The parties are advised that under the
holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions holding that aedpa amendments to  2254 apply only to such cases as were filed after the statutes enactment recognizing that aedpa would not apply to a habeas petition that was pending at the time of its enactment holding that congress intended the courts to apply the civil rights act of 1991 to cases pending at the time of its enactment and to preact conduct still open to challenge after that time holding that the limitations period is not tolled while a federal habeas petition is pending