Bridgette

MEMORANDUM *

George Bridgette was convicted by a jury in California state court on charges of first-degree murder and attempted murder. He contends on appeal that the district court erred by not granting his petition for writ of habeas corpus based on his claim of juror misconduct. We affirm.

Bridgette contends that the district court erred by failing to conduct its own evidentiary hearing before rejecting the magistrate judge’s credibility findings. We disagree. The district court did not disturb any of the magistrate judge’s credibility findings, but rather concluded that much of the evidence considered by the magistrate was inadmissible under the rules of evidence. Moreover, the district court owed no deference to the magistrate judge’s finding that the alleged jury misconduct was prejudicial because the issue represents a mixed question of law and fact which the district court reviews de novo. Rodriguez v. Marshall, 125 F.3d 739, 744 (9th Cir.1997).

Bridgette also challenges the district court’s conclusion that the jurors did not commit prejudicial misconduct. We agree with the district court that Bridgette has failed to carry his burden of showing that the jurors’ conduct…