McCarthy v. Hernandez · ¶28

The District Court granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of the trial court's response to the note, and a panel of the Second Circuit reversed based on Seibert. Hernan dez v. McIntosh, 146 F. 4th 142 (2025). The panel stated that Justice Kennedy's opinion in Seibert set out a binding rule of federal law and that the trial court needed to explain the rule and its consequences in its response to the jury's note. Unlike the state courts, the Magistrate Judge, and the District Court, the panel found the trial court's “no” answer to be “manifestly inaccurate.” 146 F. 4th, at 159. In the panel's view, that error warranted habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) because the response was contrary to and involved an unreasonable application of Seibert. 146 F. 4th, at 159–160. That was so, according to the panel, because the “rule laid out in Seibert is relevant not only to a…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.