Opinion ID: 2826316
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: la casella’s contacts with jurors.

Text: We now turn to the heart of the Turner analysis: whether La Casella had continuous and intimate association with jurors, such that his words had “undue credence” or “undue weight,” creating “an aura of probable prejudice.” Helmick, 437 F.2d at 322–23 (describing Turner’s second prong). 16 CUMMINGS V. MARTEL The trial judge held an evidentiary hearing on La Casella’s contacts with jurors and admitted his testimony after concluding he “probably has one of the most minimal contacts and certainly isn’t the type of bailiff that gets involved in talking and kidding and joking with the jurors. . . .” On appeal, the California Supreme Court described the trial court’s ruling: La Casella’s “association with the jurors was so minimal and so professional that the probative value of his testimony outweighed any prejudice to Cummings from his status.” Cummings, 850 P.2d at 37. The court agreed with this assessment, holding that La Casella’s testimony did not violate Turner because he “had relatively little direct contact with members of the jury and was promptly relieved of his courtroom duties when he became a witness.” Id. at 38. The jury was also “admonished” to judge all witnesses on the same basis and to accord “no greater weight . . . to La Casella because he had been a deputy in the court.” Id. We give AEDPA deference to this determination, despite our conclusion with respect to the key witness issue.2 Unlike 2