Melonson

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Alcede Melonson, currently serving 455 years to life after being convicted in California state court of 15 counts of robbery and two counts of attempted robbery, appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . Because we conclude that the state court decision constituted “an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), we reverse.

The sole issue in Melonson’s petition is whether he was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury as a result of the state trial judge’s instruction to a juror, referred to as Juror No. 9, to refrain from taking her own personal experience with the police identification process into account when deciding the case. The state appellate court 1 correctly stated that a juror’s consideration of personal and external experiences is a fundamental part of the jury system. In quoting People v. Marshall, 50 Cal.3d 907 , 269 Cal.Rptr. 269 , 790 P.2d 676, 699-700 (Cal.1990), the state appellate court explained:

The state court’s statement of the law follows clearly established federal law pronounced by the Supreme Court. See…