Adams

MEMORANDUM

Roland Gonzales, a California prisoner, appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm. Although a “procedural-bar issue should ordinarily be considered first” we proceed directly to the merits, as they are “easily resolvable against the habeas petitioner.” Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 524-25 , 117 S.Ct. 1517 , 137 L.Ed.2d 771 (1997).

1. The district court properly concluded that the state court’s decision finding no juror misconduct in testing the sharpness of the knife was neither contrary to, nor 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). “[T]he ‘evidence developed’ against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public courtroom where there is full judicial protection of the defendant’s right of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel.” Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-73 , 85 S.Ct. 546 , 13 L.Ed.2d 424 (1965). However this standard does not bar jurors from manipulating an object in evidence during deliberations to test its properties. See, e.g., United States v.…