David Ruderman v. Charles Ryan

MEMORANDUM

David Robert Ruderman appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his state court convictions for sexual conduct with a minor and public sexual indecency to a minor. We affirm.

1. Right to cm Impartial Jury. Ruderman contends that he was denied his right to an impartial jury because the state court failed to strike sua sponte six jurors who were biased. Even if we were to review this claim de novo, it would fail. Because Ruderman did not move to dismiss the jurors for cause, he must show that the state trial court erred because “the evidence of partiality before the district court was so indicative of impermissible juror bias that the court was obliged to strike [the challenged jurors], even though neither counsel made the request.” United States v. Mitchell, 568 F.3d 1147, 1151 (9th Cir.2009); cf. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412, 429 , 105 S.Ct. 844 , 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). A state trial judge’s finding of impartiality is presumptively correct under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1). See Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 218 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). Given the extensive voir dire conducted by the court, the jurors’ responses to…