Eddington
Eddington v. Hill
Opinion
Lead Opinion
*513 MEMORANDUM **
Petitioner Melvin L. Eddington, Jr., asserts that the district court wrongfully denied his habeas petition, which alleged that his due process rights were violated when certain jurors learned that a co-defendant had pled guilty to rape and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. 1 Because the relevant facts are known to the parties they are not repeated here.
The district court’s decision to grant or to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition is reviewed de novo. Benn v. Lambert, 283 F.3d 1040, 1051 (9th Cir.2002). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), a petitioner must demonstrate that the state court’s adjudication of the merits “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1); see Penry v. Johnson, 532 U.S. 782, 792-93 , 121 S.Ct. 1910 , 150 L.Ed.2d 9 (2001). State court findings of fact are presumed correct unless the petitioner rebuts the presumption with clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (e)(1); Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1019 (9th Cir.2001).