Bell v. Uribe, 748 F.3d 857

California Attorney General appeals district court’s grant of habeas relief to Bell and DeMola.
Trial court removed Juror No. 7 for willful misconduct under Penal Code § 1089 after she acted as an alleged expert.
California Court of Appeal upheld removal as proper based on misconduct (unsworn expert, external research).
District court, applying AEDPA, granted relief de novo after Williams v. Cavazos guidance was superseded later by Johnson v. Williams.
Supreme Court decision in Johnson v. Williams then required AEDPA deference and binding state court merits adjudication.
This appeal reverses the district court, denies relief, and remands for consideration of remaining claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Juror No. 7’s removal violated the Sixth Amendment.	Bell and DeMola	State	No Sixth Amendment violation; removal for cause proper under the record.
Standard of review for habeas claims post-Williams-Johnson.	Bell and DeMola	State	AEDPA deferential standard applies; state court decision entitled to deference.
Whether Miller governs the Eighth Amendment challenge to DeMola’s sentence.	DeMola	State	Miller does not mandate relief; sentence individualized under § 190.5(b) permitted.
Whether California’s § 1089 removal procedures complied with federal due process.	Bell and DeMola	State	Procedures satisfied due process; prompt hearing and careful inquiry conducted.

Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussed AEDPA deference and merits review in Williams context)
Johnson v. Williams, 133 S. Ct. 1088 (2013) (overruled Williams’ deference rule; requires different analysis)
Perez v. Marshall, 119 F.3d 1422 (9th Cir. 1997) (upholds deprivation-free removal under §1089 where conduct merits separate evaluation)
Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (due process require focused inquiry into juror misconduct)
Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998) (investigation into juror misconduct must be reasonably calculated to resolve doubts)