Marcus Louis Howell v. E.J. Brenen Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General

91 F.3d 152 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Marcus Louis HOWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. E.J. BRENEN; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees. No. 94-56660. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted June 25, 1996. * Decided June 28, 1996. Before: NOONAN, LEAVY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Marcus Louis Howell, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Howell alleges that: (1) his constitutional rights were violated when jurors reenacted a demonstration during deliberations, and (2) his counsel was ineffective for failing to interview and subpoena a witness. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review de novo, Thompson v. Borg, 74 F.3d 1571, 1573 (9th Cir.1996), and affirm. 3 * Juror Misconduct 4 Howell first contends that his constitutional rights were violated when the jurors reenacted a demonstration between the…