McCarthy v. Hernandez · ¶5

The Second Circuit ordered habeas relief in this case based on its holding that a state-court decision was “contrary to” and “involved an unreasonable application” of Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U. S. 600 (2004), because the decision approved a trial judge's refusal to tell a jury how to apply Seibert—or, more precisely, how to apply what the Second Circuit understood to be the holding in that case. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). But Seibert said nothing about jury instructions. For this reason and others, the Second Circuit exceeded the role that AEDPA prescribes.

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