Mark Hauseur v. Tim Virga

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Mark Wayne Hauseur appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo the district court’s decision to deny Hauseur’s habeas petition, see Clabourne v. Ryan, 745 F.3d 362, 370 (9th Cir.2014), and we affirm.

Hauseur was convicted of first-degree murder in 2004. He argues that various irregularities compromised the integrity of the jury. We assume without deciding that these arguments are properly before us, and that our review is de novo. On the record presented, neither the statements made by the victim’s wife nor one juror’s alleged conversation with a police officer were the kind of extrinsic material likely to have “substantially and injuriously affected the verdict.” Cook v. LaMarque, 593 F.3d 810, 827 (9th Cir.2010) (internal punctuation marks omitted). Any relationship that another juror may have had with a prosecution witness was, similarly, too insubstantial to have rendered that juror incapable of “deciding] the case solely on the evidence before [him].” McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 554 , 104 S.Ct. 845 , 78 L.Ed.2d 663 (1984) (quoting…