F.3d 633, 641-42 (6th Cir.2010); Treesh v. Bagley, 612 F.3d 424, 437 (6th Cir.2010). And lately, the Eighth Circuit has noted, but not resolved, an inconsistency in its own case law with respect to whether it will apply implied bias. Sanders v. Norris, 529 F.3d 787, 791-93 (8th Cir.2008). 14 . See Brooks v. Dretke, supra, at 329 ("We maintain that the doctrine of implied bias is ‘clearly established Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court’ ” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), which requires federal habeas judges to defer to the judgments of state courts unless a particular state court judgment is "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”). 15 . Majority opinion, at 306 (<HOLDING>). 16 . 455 U.S. at 217, 102 S.Ct. 940. 17 . Id.
holding that smith v phillips stands for the categorical proposition that a hearing will invariably prove to be an adequate procedure for revealing actual juror bias holding that although this court affords broad discretion to the district court in determining the type of investigation necessary to determine juror bias the district court must provide the defendant a meaningful opportunity to prove the same recognizing that statutes mandating recusal for actual bias have constitutional bases unlike those that require recusal for a mere appearance of bias or prejudice holding that a challenge for cause for actual bias  essentially requires a determination  of credibility holding that the government need not prove actual notice to the prisoner