Opinion ID: 4473270
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: State Court Error

Text: Blueford argues perfunctorily that the state court violated his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury when it allowed Massey to remain on the jury after receiving the foreman’s note. In denying Blueford habeas relief on this claim, the state court discredited the note based on Massey’s affirmations during voir dire and the fact that “at no time during the trial had there been any indication that Ms. Massey was having difficulty hearing or understanding the proceedings.” Blueford offers no evidence to controvert the state court’s findings, which must be presumed correct. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). Significant evidence indicating that Massey was competent to serve on the jury could reasonably be seen as outweighing the foreman’s note. We cannot conclude that the state courts unreasonably applied the law to the facts. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court denying habeas relief is AFFIRMED. 2Because the state courts reasonably concluded that Britton’s performance was not deficient, we need not address Strickland’s prejudice prong. Leal v. Dretke, 428 F.3d 542, 548 (5th Cir. 2005). 7