As a preliminary matter we note that this court's power to review state convictions is limited and habeas relief will only be granted "where errors of constitutional magnitude have occurred." Carter v. Armontrout, 929 F.2d 1294, 1296 (8th Cir.1991). For a petitioner to succeed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, he or she must establish that the alleged error effectively rendered the entire trial fundamentally unfair and that absent the error, the outcome of the trial would probably have been different. Newlon v. Armontrout, 885 F.2d 1328, 1336 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 497 U.S. 1038, 110 S.Ct. 3301, 111 L.Ed.2d 810 (1990).

"Federal courts are not forums in which to relitigate state trials." Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 887, 103 S.Ct. 3383, 3392, 77 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1983). Questions of admissibility of evidence in state trials are matters of state law and ordinarily are not grounds for federal habeas relief. Manning-El v. Wyrick, 738 F.2d 321, 322 (8th Cir.) (Manning-El ), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 919, 105 S.Ct. 298, 83 L.Ed.2d 233 (1984).

In reviewing a federal habeas petition we examine "the totality of the facts in the case pending before [us] and analyze the fairness of the particular trial under consideration." Maggitt v. Wyrick, 533 F.2d 383, 385 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 898, 97 S.Ct. 264, 50 L.Ed.2d 183 (1976). However, we do not sit to correct errors of fact, but to ensure that individuals are not imprisoned in violation of the Constitution. Herrera v. Collins, --- U.S. ----, ----, 113 S.Ct. 853, 855, 122 L.Ed.2d 203 (1993).

Glaze argues that he was denied due process of law because on three separate occasions during the course of the trial he was precluded from introducing evidence that the murders had been committed by a person or persons other than him. Glaze contends that the excluded evidence tended to show that Michael Cooper murdered Green.

Specifically, Glaze argues that the excluded evidence showed that: (1) Cooper wore a black baseball cap with a "Coors" logo that was similar to a cap found at the murder scene, (2) Green had told others that Cooper had raped her at knife point six months prior to the murder and a knife was found at the murder scene, and (3) Green had given her sister a list of people she feared and Cooper was on the list. The state, however, argues that Glaze has not shown that the exclusion of the Cooper evidence rendered the entire trial fundamentally unfair. We agree.

"[a] state court's interpretation of state law is binding upon a federal court in a habeas proceeding." Williamson v. Jones, 936 F.2d 1000, 1004 (8th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 901, 116 L.Ed.2d 802 (1992). The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the Cooper evidence was admissible on the issue of the identity of the person who murdered Green. Glaze, 452 N.W.2d at 661. "[W]here the issue is whether in fact the defendant killed the deceased, evidence tending to prove that another person did the killing is admissible. The purpose of evidence to show that another committed the homicide is not to prove the guilt of the other person, but to generate a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant." State v. Hawkins, 260 N.W.2d 150, 158-59 (Minn.1977) (Hawkins ).

However, the state supreme court held that the error was harmless because there was overwhelming evidence of Glaze's guilt. Glaze, 452 N.W.2d at 661.

In addition, the state supreme court held that the Cooper evidence had not been completely excluded because the jury heard that Green had a pimp who wore a "Coors" cap and that a similar cap was found at the murder scene. Id. The court also noted that while an attorney's comments are not evidence, defense counsel in his closing statement told the jury that Green was afraid of someone. Id.

We have carefully reviewed the record and hold that the additional evidence on Cooper would not have produced a different verdict and thus its exclusion did not deny Glaze due process. As noted by the state supreme court, there was overwhelming evidence of Glaze's guilt, including multiple inculpatory statements, and the evidence about Cooper was not completely excluded from the jury.

Glaze next argues that he was denied due process because he was precluded from introducing into evidence a confession by another person that he had committed the murders. Kenneth Alexander, an inmate at the Minnesota Correctional Facility at Lino Lakes, called defense counsel during trial. Alexander told defense counsel that in April of 1987, he had been "shooting dope" with a person named Kerry Haukw.4

According to Alexander, Haukw confessed to him that he was the one that the police were investigating in connection with the murders of the Native American women. Glaze argues that the state court erred in excluding this evidence as inadmissible hearsay because Minnesota law allows the introduction of such evidence as a statement against interest if corroborated.

Glaze also contends that the state trial court violated his due process rights by not allowing him a continuance to locate prostitutes who would have testified that Haukw had previously placed gun barrels in their vaginas, in a manner similar to the objects found in the vaginas of the three victims.

The state argues that the state trial court correctly excluded evidence of the Haukw statement because it was inadmissible hearsay. The state contends that Glaze failed to offer any independent corroborating evidence as required by Minnesota law.

As stated above, the admissibility of evidence at trial is a matter of state law and will not form the basis for habeas relief unless an evidentiary ruling infringes on an individual's constitutional protections. Manning-El, 738 F.2d at 322. Minnesota law allows for the admission of a statement against interest but only if the statement is corroborated in a way that demonstrates the trustworthiness and credibility of the alleged statement. State v. Higginbotham, 298 Minn. 1, 212 N.W.2d 881, 883 (1973) (Higginbotham ).

The state courts found the statements unreliable and excluded them. Therefore, we hold that the exclusion of the statement by Haukw neither infringed on any constitutional right nor did it violate Glaze's due process rights because the excluded evidence did not negate any of the crucial facts that ultimately convicted Glaze.

Finally, Glaze argues that he was denied due process because he was precluded from presenting evidence of a statement by one Phillip Foy, whose whereabouts were unknown at the time of trial, regarding a fight between Sweet and Joe Foster the night that she was killed. Glaze contends that the state trial court should have admitted such testimony because the alleged fight was admissible under Hawkins as tending to prove that another person had a motive for murdering Sweet.

The state contends that the state trial court correctly excluded the alleged statement as hearsay. We agree. "Out-of-court statements are ... excluded because they lack the conventional indicial of reliability: they are usually not made under oath or other circumstances that impress the speaker with the solemnity of his statements; the declarant's word is not subject to cross-examination; and he is not available in order that his demeanor and credibility may be assessed by the jury." Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1047, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), citing, California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 1935, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970).

In view of the evidence of guilt, the lack of reliability of the excluded evidence and the conduct of the entire trial, we hold that the district court correctly found that the questions presented here do not rise to the level of constitutional dimension.