free.” (Id.) Jacobs stated that the day had been long, that jurors did not have a dinner break, and that she felt worn down by the other jurors, one of whom was angry that the trial had continued so long that he would miss a big band concert. (Id. at 14-15, 18.) At the close of the hearing, the trial court denied the motion for new trial, holding that the jury verdict was not impeachable on the basis of Jacobs’ allegations, which involved misconduct inhering in the jury deliberations, rather than from improper influence by external factors. (Id. at 20-24.) Petitioner challenged the denial of new trial on direct appeal, raising only a state-law claim. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed on the same grounds. (MCOA Op. at 4 (citing People v. Budzyn, 456 S.Ct. 450, 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954) (<HOLDING>); Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 149,
holding that equally consistent circumstances of influence cannot be considered as evidence of undue influence holding that the government had not produced evidence that the defendant intended to influence an official proceeding because the evidence showed only that he intended to influence the state civil proceedings that he had brought against his insurance agency recognizing that failure to hold a hearing constitutes ah abuse of discretion only where there is evidence that the jury was subjected to influence by outside sources recognizing that trial court is obligated to conduct evidentiary hearing only when defendant makes a colorable showing of extrinsic influence  holding that allegations of influence by an unnamed person outside the jury required the holding of an evidentiary hearing to determine extrinsic influence