on habeas review with respect to the Illinois Appellate Court’s determination that it was harmless error for the trial court to fail to tell defense counsel about the note after the jury’s verdict. II. Analysis We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Rizzo v. Smith, 528 F.3d 501, 505 (7th Cir.2008). The Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which applies to this case, Julian v. Bartley, 495 F.3d 487, 492 (7th Cir.2007), prohibits a federal court from issuing a writ of habeas corpus on any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in the state court, unless it: “(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly esta , 95 S.Ct. 2091, 45 L.Ed.2d 1 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The Illinois Appellate Court first noted that
holding that it was not reversible error to fail to answer the jurys question where the trial judge was presiding over closing arguments in a codefendants case when the question was asked and the jury reached a result before the judge could confer with the parties holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion lacked specificity holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion was not made in good faith holding that it was error for the trial judge to answer a jurys question without giving defendants counsel an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responded