Whether clearly established federal law requires that a habeas petitioner's claim that his constitutional rights were violated because a juror read passages from the Bible to other jurors during capital-sentencing deliberations be analyzed under the presumed prejudice rule of Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 150 (1892), and Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954)

QUESTION PRESENTED At Martin Kipp’s capital trial, the prosecutor presented evidence that Kipp worshipped Satan and concluded his penalty-phase closing by asserting that Kipp “has murder in his heart, has Satan [in] his soul.” After three days of deliberations, the jurors voted for death only after one of them brought a Bible into the jury room and read several passages from it to the others, including the phrase, “an eye for an eye.” Hight of the jurors self-identified as Christian. The question presented is: Whether clearly established federal law requires that a habeas petitioner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated because a juror read passages from the Bible to other jurors during capital-sentencing deliberations be analyzed under the presumed prejudice rule of Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140, 150 (1892), and Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 (1954), because the Bible-reading is an impermissible external influence on the jury’s deliberations and verdict. 1 PARTIES AND LIST OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS The parties to this proceeding are Petitioner Martin Kipp and Respondent Ron Broomfield, Acting Warden.’ The California Attorney General represents Respondent. On December 15, 1988, Kipp was convicted by jury in Los Angeles County Superior Court of first degree murder, rape, and robbery in People v. Kipp, case no. A028286, Judge Michael G. Nott, presiding. Petitioner’s