Corjasso

MEMORANDUM *

Michael Corjasso contends that he was denied his constitutional right to due process when a client of the prosecutor’s law firm was allowed to serve on his jury and that his counsel was ineffective in failing to challenge the juror for cause.

I.

Corjasso’s counsel was made aware of the juror’s relationship with the prosecutor’s firm and had the opportunity on at least two occasions to challenge her participation in the trial. Counsel was also informed by the trial judge that there was a state statute which may provide cause to object to the juror’s presence on the jury. Although counsel’s failure to object to the juror may support an ineffective assistance claim, it was, under all of the circumstances, not objectively unreasonable for the California Supreme Court to determine that any unobjected-to implied juror bias resulting from the imputed relationship between the prosecutor and the juror did not violate Corjasso’s due process rights in contravention of clearly established Supreme Court law. 2 Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75-76 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003).

II.

There is a material dispute as to whether counsel consulted with Corjasso about…