Opinion ID: 222859
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The autoradiograms

Text: Woods argues that his counsel's failure to ensure that the DNA autorads [17] went into the jury room amounted to a Strickland violation. At trial, the autorads were used to help illustrate Dr. Brown's testimony regarding DNA. In re Woods, 114 P.3d at 621. The jurors were informed that the autorads were for demonstrative purposes only. Id. During deliberations, the jury asked to see the autorads, but the trial court denied the request on the basis that they were only used for illustrative purposes. Id. Neither the prosecution nor defense counsel objected to this ruling. Id. The Washington Supreme Court held that, when an exhibit is used for illustrative purposes only and the jurors are instructed that the exhibit is not evidence, than [sic] the exhibit should not go to the jury room. Id. at 621 ( citing State v. Lord, 117 Wash.2d 829, 822 P.2d 177, 194 (1991)). Thus, the court held that the trial court correctly refused to send the autorads to the deliberation room for consideration. Id. at 428, 114 P.3d 607. We are bound to defer to that interpretation of Washington state law. See Bradshaw, 546 U.S. at 76, 126 S.Ct. 602. In light of that ruling, Woods cannot show prejudice resulting from his counsel's failure to object to the trial court's exclusion of the autorads from the jury deliberation room. Even if defense counsel had objected, the objection would have been properly overruled under Washington law. Woods is therefore not entitled to habeas relief on this claim.