With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that intent was irrelevant; the only issue was whether an ordinary person would pull out a gun and fire at people. (Id. at 10-11.) Jacobs denied that the foreman was intimidating. Instead, she testified that he was insistent that the jurors disregard the issue of intent. (Id. at 13.) Jacobs also testified that various jurors concluded that Petitioner was in a gang and expressed their beliefs that gang members wanted to kill people. (Id. 14.) One juror expressed her belief “that these kids are all alike, that they are angry, and that they think that society owes them, and she said she’s seen people like the Defendant before .... ” (Id. at 14.) Another juror stated, “Oh, this country’s going to hell because people get let off, and they let all the bad guys S.Ct. 50, 36 L.Ed. 917 (1892) (<HOLDING>). In Tanner, 483 U.S. at 126-27, 107 S.Ct.

A: holding that expert testimony should not be admitted as to a matter that is obviously within the common knowledge of jurors because such testimony almost by definition can be of no assistance
B: holding that juror access to several exhibits that had not been admitted into evidence was not prejudicial as they were cumulative of trial testimony
C: holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless
D: holding admissible testimony of jurors describing jury review of information not admitted into evidence
D.