David James Farrow v. George Smith, Warden Daniel E. Lungren Attorney General for the State of California

48 F.3d 1227 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. David James FARROW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George SMITH, Warden; Daniel E. Lungren; Attorney General for the State of California, Defendants-Appellees, No. 94-55401. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Feb. 10, 1995. * Decided Feb. 27, 1995. Before: TROTT, FERNANDEZ, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** A. Alleged Trial Errors 1. Juror Misconduct 2 Farrow claims the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing to investigate juror misconduct. We disagree. Despite the Supreme Court's decision in Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954), and Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982), "[a]n evidentiary hearing is not mandated every time there is an allegation of jury misconduct or bias." United States v. Angulo, 4 F.3d 843, 847 (9th Cir.1993). The district court properly considered "the content of [Farrow's] allegations, the seriousness of the alleged misconduct or bias,…