APPENDIX A Bebo v. Medeiros, 906 F.3d 129 (2018) deliberations, where district court did not conduct evidentiary hearing. 28 U.S.C.A. § 906 F.3d 129 2254. United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. Cases that cite this headnote Joseph A. BEBO, Petitioner, Appellant, v. Sean MEDEIROS, Acting [2] Habeas Corpus Superintendent, Respondent, Appellee. Federal Review of State or Territorial Cases No. 17-2218 Under the peculiarly deferential standards of I the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty October 3, 2018 Act (AEDPA), error by a state court, without more, is not enough to warrant federal habeas Synopsis relief. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(l). Background: Following his conviction in state court for murder in the second degree, 2013 WL 1149504, petitioner Cases that cite this headnote filed federal petition for writ of habeas corpus. The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Patti B. Saris, J., 2017 WL 6551276, denied petition. (3) Habeas Corpus Petitioner appealed. Federal or constitutional questions To be deemed "contrary to" clearly established federal law, within meaning of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Selya, Circuit Judge, held Act (AEDPA), a state court decision must that: announce a rule of law that directly contradicts existing Supreme Court precedent [l] petitioner's argument that state court erred in or reach a different result than the Supreme determining that book found injury room was extraneous Court on materially indistinguishable facts. 28 material would be reviewed de novo, and U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(l). [2] state court's determination that book found iu jury 1 Cases that cite this headnote room was not extraneous material, as would require jury inquiry, was not contrary to, or unreasonable application Habeas Corpus of, clearly established federal law. (4) Federal Review of State or Territorial Cases Affirmed. "Unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law occurs, within meaning of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), when the state court West Headnotes (24) identifies the correct governing legal rule but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the [1] Habeas Corpus particular state prisoner's case. e- Review de novo 1 Cases that cite this headnote Appellate court would review de novo petitioner's argument, on appeal of district court's denial of his federal habeas petition, [5] Habeas Corpus that state court erred in finding that book Federal Review of State or Territorial discovered in jury room was not extraneous Cases material that could have influenced jurors' WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to orig in al U.S. Government Works. Bebo v. Medeiros, 906 F.3d 129 (2018) Federal habeas relief under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) only Cases that cite this headnote provides a remedy for instances in which a state court unreasonably applies the Supreme [91 Constitutional Law Court's precedent; it does not require state Sixth Amendment courts to extend that precedent or license Jury federal courts to treat the failure to do so as Competence for Trial of Cause error. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(l). Sixth Amendment right to trial by impartial Cases that cite this headnote jury is made binding upon the states through the Fourteenth amendment and, thus, applies with full force to state criminal prosecutions. [6] Habeas Corpus U.S. Const. Amends. 6, 14 . ... Federal or constitutional questions Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Cases that cite this headnote Act (AEDPA) standards ensure that federal habeas relief will be granted only in cases in [101 Jury which all fairminded jurists would agree that Competence for Trial of Cause a final state court decision is at odds with the Supreme Court's existing precedents. 28 To ensure that Sixth Amendment right to trial by impartial jury is not an empty promise, a U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(l). jury's verdict must be based upon the evidence 1 Cases that cite this headnote developed at the trial. U.S. Const. An1end. 6. Cases that cite this headnote [7] Habeas Corpus t= Federal or constitutional questions [11] Jury One consequence of rule under Antiterrorism ,.., Competence for Trial of Cause and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) In context of Sixth Amendment right to trial that federal habeas relief will be granted by impartial jury, verdict must be free from only in cases in which all fairminded jurists external causes tending to disturb the exercise would agree that final state court decision of deliberate and unbiased judgment. U.S. is at odds with Supreme Court's existing Const. Amend. 6. precedents is that a federal court sitting in habeas jurisdiction may not overrule a state Cases that cite this headnote court for simply holding a view different from its own, when the precedent from the Supreme Court is, at best, ambiguous. 28 U.S.C.A. § [12] Jury 2254(d)(l). Application of constitutional provisions in general 2 Cases that cite this headnote Sixth Amendment guarantee to trial by impartial jury admits of some exceptions, for [81 Habeas Corpus example, misdemeanors punishable by a term • Federal Review of State or Territorial of imprisonment of six months or less do not Cases generate a right to a trial by jury. U.S. Const. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Amend. 6. Act (AEDPA) does not require state and Cases that cite this headnote federal courts to wait for some nearly identical factual pattern before a legal rule must be applied. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(l). [13] Criminal Law WEST AW © 2018 Thomson Re uters. No claim to orig inal U.S. Government Works. 2 Bebo v. Medeiros, 906 F.3d 129 (2018) .,_ Denying or explaining assent to verdict Judges When an extraneous influence may have Constitutional Law infected a jury's deliberations in criminal Fair and impartial jury prosecution, a court may admit juror As long as there is a jury capable and willing testimony to impeach the verdict. to decide the case solely on the evidence before it, and a trial judge ever watchful to prevent Cases that cite this headnote prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen, (14) Criminal Law due process is not offended. U.S. Const. .,. Consideration by jury of matters not in Amend. 14. evidence Cases that cite this headnote To be considered "extraneous," as would allow court to admit juror testimony to impeach verdict in criminal prosecution, (18) Criminal Law information must derive from a source Documents or demonstrative evidence external' to the jury, such as publicity and Introduction of an extraneous document into information related specifically to the case the the jury room during deliberations is always a jurors are meant to decide. cause for concern. Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote (15] Criminal Law (19) Criminal Law .., Denying or explaining assent to verdict Objections and disposition thereof Evidence regarding internal influences, such For purpose of determining whether jury as jurors' personal beliefs and experiences, inquiry is warranted, "extraneous material" generally may not be used to impeach a verdict is defined as any private communication, in criminal prosecution. contact, or tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror during a trial about the matter Cases that cite this headnote pending before the jury. (16] Criminal Law Cases that cite this headnote it= Misconduct of or Affecting Jurors Criminal Law (20) Habeas Corpus Objections and disposition thereof Conduct and deliberations of jury Upon receiving information regarding State court's determination that book found external communication, contact, or in jury room day after jury returned tampering, directly or indirectly, with a juror its verdict finding petitioner guilty of during a criminal trial about the matter murder, which disparaged defense attorneys pending before the jury, a trial court must in terms somewhat similar to those sounded determine the circumstances, the impact by prosecution in closing, and discussed thereof upon the juror, and whether or not it criminals trying to evade responsibility for was prejudicial, in a hearing with all interested crimes bearing arguable similarity to crime parties permitted to participate. charged, was not extraneous material that required jury inquiry was not contrary Cases that cite this headnote to, or unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as would warrant (17) Constitutional Law grant of federal habeas relief on petitioner's claim that his Sixth Amendment right to trial WEST AW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 Bebo v. Medeiros, 906 F.3d 129 (2018) by impartial jury was violated. U.S. Const. Amend. 6; 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(l). Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote [24] Habeas Corpus Federal Review of State or Territorial [21] Habeas Corpus Cases Federal Review of State or Territorial Habeas Corpus Cases Federal or constitutional questions Habeas Corpus If a federal habeas court must extend a Federal or constitutional questions rationale before it can apply to the facts Circuit court case law is only relevant under at hand, then by definition the rationale Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty was not clearly established at the time of Act (AEDPA) to ascertain whether a court of the state-court decision, within meaning of appeals has already held that the particular Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty point in issue is clearly established by Supreme Act (AEDPA); this remains true even where Court precedent. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(l). the proposed extension is a logical one. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(d)(l). Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote [22] Habeas Corpus Federal Review of State or Territorial Cases *131 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES Habeas Corpus DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF Federal or constitutional questions • MASSACHUSETTS, [Hon.