trial court did not make an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The juror ultimately testified that she thought she could still fairly evaluate the case, and the trial court, determined that the juror could continue to serve fairly and impartially. “The trial court was in a superior position to observe [the juror’s] physical appearance and demeanor and thereby to determine her ability to continue deliberating.” Perez v. Marshall, 119 F.Sd 1422, 1427 (9th Cir. 1997). Given the juror’s statements that she thought she could be fair and the deference due to the trial court’s assessment of the juror’s demeanor, Boode has not shown that the trial court unreasonably found that the juror was impartial.. See Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1237 (9th Cir. 1984) (<HOLDING>). Nor has Boode shown that the California Court
holding that defendant adequately indicated to officers that she sought assistance of counsel when she stated that she wanted to call her lawyer and officer testified that request was unambiguous holding that a juror who initially equivocated as to her impartiality could be found impartial after she affirmatively said she thought she could be fair holding appellant produced no evidence that when she made her complaints to management she ever mentioned that she felt she was being treated unfairly due to her race or sex holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that a plaintiff can show that she is qualified by presenting credible evidence that she continued to possess the objective qualifications she held when she was hired