Did the Ninth Circuit incorrectly determine that California's Dixon rule procedurally barred Balint's claim that he was denied his constitutional right to be present and have the assistance of counsel at all critical stages of trial?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED During deliberations, the jury issued a compound question as to the elements of Balint’s trial defense, duress, as well as the defense of necessity. The trial judge answered the jury’s question with one word, “Yes.” This was nonresponsive and erroneous. Further, there is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that Balint or his counsel was present for a discussion of the jury’s note prior to the trial judge issuing his response. Did the Ninth Circuit incorrectly determine that California’s Dixon rule procedurally barred Balint’s claim that he was denied his constitutional right to be present and have the assistance of counsel at all critical stages of trial? Further, Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 612-13 (1946) states that “[w]hen a jury makes explicit its difficulties a trial judge should clear them away with concrete accuracy.” Did the Ninth Circuit incorrectly hold that the California Court of Appeal’s decision on this issue was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by this Court in Bollenbach? i