this definition and the jurors that did recall the discussion stated that it was only brief and one juror stated the definition was similar to the one they had been given. Also, there was overwhelming evidence to support the jury’s verdict because Tiffani witnessed the killing and saw petitioner “messing” with guns prior to Mr. Leisten’s entry, his behavior prior to the shooting demonstrated an intent to harm, and the notes in his home indicated an intent to harm Shelley. Given the overwhelming evidence of guilt, and the lack of evidence indicating the extrinsic material had any affect, the California Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the jury misconduct did not prejudice the defendant was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law. See Mancuso, 292 F.3d at 953 (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. * This disposition is not
holding that a substantial right is affected when the error had a substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding that an error must have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict to entitle a petitioner to habeas relief holding that nonconstitutional error is harmless if it did not have substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jurys verdict holding a defendant seeking a new trial on the basis of juror misconduct has the initial burden to prove thatajuror or jurors did in fact commit the alleged misconduct holding that the juror misconduct did not have a substantial and injurious affect