Carole Rucker v. Mary Lattimore

Good Law
369 F. App'x 810
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 4, 201008-56652California1,213 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner-Appellant Carole Ann Ruck-er, a state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of her habeas corpus petition. We review the district court’s determination de novo. Schell v. Witek, 218 F.3d 1017, 1022 (9th Cir.2000). The petition is subject to the deferential standards established by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AED-PA”). We must determine whether the state court proceedings “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.... ” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The trial court did not violate Rucker’s due process rights by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing after Rucker’s counsel submitted a declaration by the jury foreperson, Bruce Robinson, alleging juror misconduct. “An evidentiary hearing is not mandated every time there is an allegation of jury misconduct or bias. Rather, in determining whether a hearing must be held, the court must consider the content of the allegations, the seriousness of the alleged misconduct or bias, and the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.