Bebo v. Medeiros, 906 F.3d 129

In 2005 Joseph Bebo was convicted of second-degree murder in Massachusetts after a street-fight stabbing; he was sentenced to life.
After the jury returned its verdict, defense counsel found Ann Coulter’s book Guilty in the jury room with a note listing counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial judge.
The book contained passages disparaging defense attorneys and describing criminals using passive phrasing about stabbings—paralleling testimony at trial that Bebo said the knife "might have went through."
Bebo moved for a jury inquiry claiming the book was extraneous material that could have influenced deliberations; the trial judge denied the motion and the Massachusetts Appeals Court (MAC) affirmed.
Bebo filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief and limited the certificate of appealability to whether the book was extraneous under clearly established federal law.
The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the MAC’s determination that the book was not "extraneous" was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Coulter book found in the jury room constituted "extraneous" material requiring a Remmer hearing	Bebo: the book was external material relating to defense lawyers and stabbings and could have influenced jurors; it therefore triggered a jury inquiry	State: the book did not refer to the specific case or parties and thus was not "about the matter pending before the jury"	Held: MAC’s ruling that the book was not "extraneous" was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court law; habeas relief denied under AEDPA
Whether the book prejudiced jury impartiality and what remedy is appropriate	Bebo: if extraneous, he made a colorable showing of possible impact warranting inquiry or new hearing	State: no showing that jurors considered the book; jurors presumed to follow instructions; no prejudice shown	Held: District and appellate courts did not reach prejudice/remedy question on habeas because they resolved extraneous-material issue against Bebo; alternative prejudice inquiry unnecessary

Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (Sup. Ct.) (external communications to jurors can taint verdict)
Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (Sup. Ct.) (court must inquire when juror contact or tampering is shown)
Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (Sup. Ct.) (improper bailiff comment to juror required relief)
Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466 (Sup. Ct.) (improper contacts between jurors and trial participants can violate due process)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (Sup. Ct.) (not every potentially compromising situation requires a new trial)
Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (Sup. Ct.) (juror testimony to impeach verdict limited to external influences)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (Sup. Ct.) (standards for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (Sup. Ct.) (unreasonable application standard explained)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (Sup. Ct.) (habeas relief limited to cases where state decision is contrary to or unreasonable under clearly established federal law)
White v. Woodall, 572 U.S. 415 (Sup. Ct.) (habeas courts may not require state courts to extend Supreme Court precedent)