Cite as: 540 U. S. 12 (2003)
Per Curiam
Cf. Neder, 527 U. S., at 19 ("[W]here a defendant did not, and apparently could not, bring forth facts contesting the omitted element, answering the question whether the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error does not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the jury trial guarantee"). Under these circumstances, we cannot say that the state court's conclusion that respondent was convicted of a capital offense was objectively unreasonable. That being the case, we may not set aside its decision on habeas review.4
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
need not charge a defendant as a principal offender if the failure to so charge is harmless error.
4 Our decision, like the Court of Appeals', is limited to the issue presented here. We express no view whether habeas relief would be available to respondent on other grounds.
19
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Last modified: October 4, 2007