McCarthy v. Hernandez · ¶40
Hernandez counters that it is New York law, not federal law, that “vest[s] juries with th[e] responsibility” to assess attenuation, and that Seibert “must control the jury's consideration” of the issue for that reason. Brief in Opposition 22. Yet the trial court ruled that New York law does not vest juries with the responsibility to assess attenuation, App. 301a–302a, the Appellate Division held that the trial court's response was “correct” under and otherwise compliant with New York law, Hernandez, 181 App. Div. 3d, at 532–533, 122 N. Y. S. 3d, at 14–15, and a federal habeas court may not second-guess state-court interpretations of state law, Estelle, 502 U. S., at 67–68. In any event, Hernandez admits that a defendant “is not entitled to a freestanding jury instruction on attenuation” under New York law, Brief in Opposition 22, and neither he nor the Second Circuit has explained how a…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.