Daniel Newsom v. D. Runnels

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL SHAWN NEWSOM, No. 09-15125
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02134-GEB-
DAD
v.
D. L. RUNNELS; ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM*
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2010**
San Francisco, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit
Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
page 2
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 (1895) (Harlan, J.) (quoting United
States v. Battiste, 24 F. Cas. 1042, 1043 (Story, Circuit Justice, C.C.D. Mass.
1835)).
AFFIRMED.