of clearly established federal law. Medina argues that he was prejudiced because the trial judge’s impromptu instruction to the jury to “use your common sense and the common meaning of the words” provided the jurors with a “roving commission” to ignore the legal definitions contained in the jury instructions, and instead allowed jurors to interpret legal phrases ad hoc. In rejecting Medina’s claim, the Court of Appeal took note of the fact that, after making his improper remarks, the judge expressly charged the jury with re-reading the relevant jury instructions. This command significantly reduced the likelihood that the jury applied a “roving commission” to ignore the governing legal definitions. See Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234, 120 S.Ct. 727, 145 L.Ed.2d 727 (2000) (<HOLDING>). Medina also argued that the trial judge’s
holding that when no objection was made to jury instruction evidence to support finding based on instruction should be assessed in light of the instruction given holding that the constitution requires no more when the trial court rereads the applicable instruction holding that in a criminal trial the trial court must correct or amend an improper instruction if the proper instruction is necessary for the jury to understand the case holding omission in the jury instruction of element of offense requires a new trial holding that the requested instruction did not state the applicable law and the trial court was not required to grant it citing rule 4  325c