Harnden

MEMORANDUM *

Jeffrey S. Harnden appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas corpus petition alleging that his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury was violated by the California trial court’s failure to conduct a more thorough investigation into the possibility of jury misconduct in the course of his 1995 trial on charges of kidnaping a child, rape, lewd acts upon a child and forcible oral copulation. 1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (a). We review under AEDPA, see Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 , 268 n. 3, 120 S.Ct. 746 , 145 L.Ed.2d 756 (2000), and affirm the district court’s denial of his petition.

The three Supreme Court cases cited by Harnden —Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 , 13 S.Ct. 50 , 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892), Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 , 74 S.Ct. 450 , 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954), and Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 , 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982)—do not establish the broad rule he suggests. Rather Remmer and Smith provide a “flexible rule” and “do not stand for the proposition that any time evidence of juror bias comes to light, due process requires the trial court to question the jurors alleged to have bias.” Tracey v.…