discretion over the mode and manner of presentation of proof. So viewed, there is no substantial showing of a nascent constitutional violation. 3. The petitioner calumnizes the trial judge for allowing into evidence a pair of gray corduroy pants stained with occult blood — pants that the petitioner was wearing at the time of his arrest — and thereafter denying the petitioner’s motion to strike the exhibit. See Huenefeld, 610 N.E.2d at 347 (discussing issue and concluding that any error was harmless). Since it cannot plausibly be said that these rulings, whether right or wrong as a matter of evidence, so infused the trial with unfairness as to work a denial of due process, the petitioner’s constitutional rights are not implicated. See Puleio v. Vose, 830 F.2d 1197, 1204 (1st Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). 4. The petitioner asserts that his conviction
holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief holding that errors in state law cannot support federal habeas relief holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law holding that gardenvariety errors of state law do not warrant federal habeas relief holding that federal habeas relief is not available to correct errors of state law