Case ID: f-appx_378/html/0641-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Shawn NEWSOM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.L. RUNNELS; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 09-15125.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 13, 2010.
    
    Filed May 3, 2010.
    Steven Charles Sanders, Sanders & Associates, West Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Daniel Shawn Newsom, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Julie Anne Hokans, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Mark Anthony Johnson, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Because the trial judge’s provision of a binder to the jury did not violate the Constitution, much less entitle petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), we need not address respondent’s argument that petitioner’s claims are procedurally barred. The judge did not pressure the jury to decide the case a particular way; he merely provided procedural advice to help the jury deliberate. The Constitution does not prohibit use of bold font in jury instructions to aid the jury’s comprehension. Nor did the judge violate the Constitution when he instructed the jury to deliberate and follow the law. “It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law as it is laid down by the court.” Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 74, 15 S.Ct. 273, 39 L.Ed. 343 (1895) (Harlan, J.) (quoting United States v. Battiste, 24 F. Cas. 1042, 1043 (Story, Circuit Justice, C.C.D. Mass. 1835)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.