Whether the District Court denied the Petitioner's constitutional right to an impartial jury by failing to instruct the jury about inadmissible testimony regarding the Petitioner's prisoner status and by refusing to conduct an evidentiary hearing about jury deliberations

A. Whether the Petitioner was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury and to a fair trial when the District Court: a. After denying the Petitioner’s motion for mistrial, did not instruct the jury, sua sponte, that the testimony about Petitioner being a prisoner during police interviews was neither relevant nor admissible evidence and that the jury cannot consider during its deliberations that Petitioner had been in prison; b. Denied the Petitioner's motion to conduct an evidentiary hearing and to subpoena jurors for their testimony pursuant to Rule 606(b)(2)(A). Federal Rules of Evidence when jurors disclosed to defense counsel that the Petitioner’s prisoner status was discussed during deliberations; i. Ruled that the inadmissible testimony of Detective Garcia about the Petitioner's prisoner status was not “extraneous” evidence for the purpose of Rule 606(b)(2)(A) because it was evidence presented during trial; c. Conducted an invalid and unreliable “harmless error” analysis B. Did the Ninth Circuit rule contrary to this Court’s definition of “extraneous” when it held that the inadmissible testimony about the Petitioner’s prisoner status was not “extraneous” evidence. i