William Harrison v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden

17 F.3d 394 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. William HARRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 93-55212. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 7, 1994. * Decided Feb. 14, 1994. Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and WIGGINS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 William Harrison, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for two counts of first degree murder, robbery, and burglary. Harrison contends that (1) the trial court violated his right to due process by admitting codefendant Nida Davis's testimony and denying his motion to reopen the case during jury deliberations to inform the jury of Davis's sentence; (2) the trial court improperly admitted experimental evidence; and (3) his claim regarding an eighteen-day interruption of jury deliberations is not procedurally defaulted. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28…