Case ID: f-appx_504/html/0573-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jermaine Aaron MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kelly HARRINGTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-55030.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 8, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 10, 2013.
    Michael Joseph Brennan, Esquire, Manhattan Beach, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Stephanie Miyoshi, David A. Voet, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, McKEOWN and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

The California Court of Appeal’s ruling wasn’t “contrary to,” and didn’t involve “an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see also Harrington v. Richter, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 770, 786, 178 L.Ed.2d 624 (2011). The state court considered the totality of the circumstances, and it wasn’t unreasonable in concluding that the trial judge’s comments weren’t coercive. See Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 237-41, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988); see also Wong v. Smith, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 10, 11-12, 178 L.Ed.2d 403 (2010) (Alito, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). The judge made his comments only after the jury, which had spent relatively little time deliberating, indicated it was having trouble reaching a verdict. He made it clear that it was acceptable for the jury not to reach a verdict, and as in Lowenfield, 484 U.S. at 240 & n. 4, 108 S.Ct. 546 the defense attorney didn’t object to the judge’s remarks. In fact, the jury in this case spent slightly more time deliberating after the judge’s comments than did the Lowenfield jury. Id. U.S. 484 at 235, 108 S.Ct. 546.

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