McKenney

MEMORANDUM *

California state prisoner Peter McKenney appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We affirm.

Juror exposure to extrinsic information does not automatically violate a defendant’s constitutional rights. Due process “does not require a new trial every time a juror has been placed in a potentially compromising situation.” Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 S.Ct. 940 , 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982). The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate “the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality.” Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 800 , 95 S.Ct. 2031 , 44 L.Ed.2d 589 (1975).

We have identified five factors that courts should use in deciding whether a juror’s exposure to extrinsic information results in a violation of the right to an impartial jury:

Bayramoglu v. Estelle, 806 F.2d 880, 887 (9th Cir.1986).

The first four Bayramoglu factors give McKenney no help. Factor (3) is irrelevant here, because there is no evidence the jury discussed and considered Deputy Mayo’s “three strikes” comment. Factors (1), (2), and (4) essentially ask how long might the extrinsic information…