Cite as: 537 U. S. 3 (2002)
Per Curiam
had first found (pursuant to the correct standard) that the California court's decision was "contrary to" clearly established Supreme Court law—which it did not and could not. By mistakenly making the "contrary to" determination and then proceeding to a simple "error" inquiry, the Ninth Circuit evaded § 2254(d)'s requirement that decisions which are not "contrary to" clearly established Supreme Court law can be subjected to habeas relief only if they are not merely erroneous, but "an unreasonable application" of clearly established federal law, or based on "an unreasonable determination of the facts" (emphasis added). Even if we agreed with the Ninth Circuit majority (Judge Silverman dissented) that there was jury coercion here, it is at least reasonable to conclude that there was not, which means that the state court's determination to that effect must stand.
* * *
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
11
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Last modified: October 4, 2007