wright west argued march decided june weeks virginia home burglarized missing items recovered respondent west home trial grand larceny charges admitted prior felony conviction denied stolen items explaining frequently bought sold merchandise different flea markets offered explanation acquired stolen items gave vague evasive even contradictory answers remember acquired several major items including television set coffee table failed produce evidence corroborating story west convicted state affirmed conviction denied petition writ habeas corpus times rejecting inter alia west contention evidence insufficient support finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt federal habeas district also rejected contention appeals reversed ground standard jackson virginia evidence sufficient support conviction matter due process viewing evidence light favorable prosecution rational trier fact found essential elements crime beyond reasonable doubt met held judgment reversed case remanded reversed remanded justice thomas joined chief justice justice scalia concluded regardless whether federal habeas review state applications law fact deferentially de novo trial record contains enough evidence support west conviction jackson repeatedly emphasizes deference owed trier fact sharply limited nature constitutional sufficiency review case west strong jury entitled disbelieve uncorroborated confused testimony discount credibility account prior felony conviction take demeanor account jury also permitted consider concluded perjured testimony affirmative evidence guilt pp justice white concluded enough evidence support west conviction jackson standard justice joined justice blackmun justice stevens concluded evidence supported west conviction need decide standard review issue decide case pp justice kennedy concluded evidence sufficient convince rational factfinder guilt beyond reasonable doubt teague lane interpreted calling question settled principle mixed questions subject de novo review federal habeas corpus pp justice souter concluded west sought benefit new rule thus claim barred teague lane appeals misapplied teague commands since jackson rule old enough predated finality west conviction specific enough dictate rule conviction held unlawful although state entitled disregard jackson follow jackson rule insufficiency evidence support west conviction apparent virginia long recognized rule evidence falsely explained possession recently stolen property sufficient sustain finding possessor took goods jury rejection west explanation implies finding explanation false virginia rule reasonable accepted good law backdrop general state sufficiency standard less stringent jackson rule thus possible say reasonable jurists considered virginia rule compatible jackson standard pp thomas announced judgment delivered opinion rehnquist scalia joined white filed opinion concurring judgment post filed opinion concurring judgment blackmun stevens joined post kennedy post souter post filed opinions concurring judgment maureen mahoney deputy solicitor general argued cause amicus curiae urging reversal brief solicitor general starr assistant attorney general mueller deputy solicitor general roberts steven goldblatt argued cause filed brief respondent briefs amici curiae urging reversal filed state florida et al robert butterworth attorney general florida richard martell assistant attorney general charles cole attorney general alaska grant woods attorney general arizona winston bryant attorney general arkansas daniel lungren attorney general california gale norton attorney general colorado richard palmer chief state attorney connecticut charles oberly iii attorney general delaware michael bowers attorney general georgia warren price iii attorney general hawaii larry echohawk attorney general idaho linley pearson attorney general indiana bonnie campbell attorney general iowa robert stephen attorney general kansas chris gorman attorney general kentucky joseph curran attorney general maryland hubert humphrey iii attorney general minnesota michael moore attorney general mississippi william webster attorney general missouri marc racicot attorney general montana stenberg attorney general nebraska frankie sue del papa attorney general nevada john arnold attorney general new hampshire robert del tufo attorney general new jersey tom udall attorney general new mexico lacy thornburg attorney general north carolina nicholas spaeth attorney general north dakota susan loving attorney general oklahoma charles crookham attorney general oregon ernest preate attorney general pennsylvania travis medlock attorney general south carolina mark barnett attorney general south dakota dan morales attorney general texas paul van dam attorney general utah jeffrey amestoy attorney general vermont kenneth eikenberry attorney general washington mario palumbo attorney general west virginia joseph meyer attorney general wyoming criminal justice legal foundation kent scheidegger leslie harris steven shapiro john powell filed brief american civil liberties union et al amici curiae urging affirmance briefs amici curiae filed state new york et al robert abrams attorney general new york lee fisher attorney general ohio jerry boone solicitor general new york peter schiff deputy solicitor general martin hotvet assistant attorney general senator biden et al william sheehan christopher palmer american bar association talbot seth waxman benjamin civiletti et al douglas robinson james liebman gerald gunther et al larry yackle justice thomas announced judgment delivered opinion chief justice justice scalia joined case must determine whether appeals fourth circuit correctly applied decision jackson virginia concluding evidence respondent frank west insufficient matter due process support state conviction grand larceny december december someone broke westmoreland county virginia home angelo cardova stole items valued approximately january police conducted lawful search gloucester county virginia home west wife discovered several items stolen cardova home including various electronic equipment two television sets record player articles clothing imitation mink coat name esther embroidered silk jacket emblazoned korea pair shoes decorations several wood carvings mounted lobster miscellaneous household objects mirror framed seashells coffee table bar sleeping bag silverware items valued approximately police recovered unspecified items cardova property approximate value west charged grand larceny testifying trial behalf admitted prior felony conviction denied taken anything cardova house explained bought sold lot merchandise several guys flea bargain places according west lot times buy things stolen although never know app west said bought many stolen items ronnie elkins west claimed known years west testified purchased one wood carvings jacket mounted lobster mirror bar elkins west initially guessed twice positively asserted sale occurred january addition west claimed purchased coat elkins around january testimony make clear whether describing one transaction two whether transactions elkins transactions occurred whether transactions occurred flea markets west testified purchased one television sets entirely separate transaction goochland county individual whose name forgotten finally west testified remember acquired second television coffee table silverware virginia law grand larceny defined wrongful nonconsensual taking property worth least intent deprive owner permanently see code ann skeeter commonwealth virginia law permits inference person fails explain falsely explains exclusive possession recently stolen property thief see moehring commonwealth best commonwealth trial instructed jurors permissive inference warned inference compromise constitutional obligation acquit unless found state established every element crime beyond reasonable doubt see winship jury returned guilty verdict west received prison sentence west petitioned appeal contending among things evidence insufficient support finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt may virginia refused petition disposition indicating found petition without merit see saunders reynolds seven years later west filed petition writ habeas corpus supported affidavit executed ronnie elkins april west renewed claim original trial record contained insufficient evidence support conviction argued alternative elkins affidavit tended corroborate west trial testimony certain respects constituted new evidence entitling new trial virginia denied relief west filed petition writ habeas corpus district eastern district virginia rejected claims denied relief appeals fourth circuit reversed correctly recognized claim evidence insufficient support conviction matter due process depends whether viewing evidence light favorable prosecution rational trier fact found essential elements crime beyond reasonable doubt jackson virginia emphasis original five considerations led conclude standard met first items recovered sooner two weeks stolen second third items stolen cardova measured value recovered west third items found west house plain view hidden away contraband fourth west explanation possession inherently implausible even disbelieved fairly treated positive evidence guilt fifth corroborating evidence fingerprints eyewitness testimony beyond fact mere possession see viewed west testimony neutral factor despite noting confusion details alleged purchases despite conceding testimony first blush may seem incredible holding jackson standard met take consideration fact virginia twice previously concluded otherwise fourth circuit denied rehearing en banc equally divided see app pet cert warden state attorney general sought review among questions whether appeals applied jackson correctly case granted certiorari requested additional briefing question whether federal habeas afford deference state determinations applying law specific facts case reverse ii habeas corpus statute permits federal entertain petition state prisoner ground custody violation constitution laws treaties must dispose matter law justice require much history interpreted bare guidelines predecessors reflect common law principle prisoner seeking writ habeas corpus challenge jurisdiction rendered judgment custody see wood harlan ex parte watkins pet marshall gradually began expand category claims deemed jurisdictional habeas purposes see ex parte siebold without jurisdiction impose sentence unconstitutional statute ex parte lange wall without jurisdiction impose sentence authorized statute next began recognize federal claims state prisoners state provided full fair opportunity litigate claims see moore dempsey frank mangum however inverse rule also remained true absent alleged jurisdictional defect habeas corpus lie state prisoner given adequate opportunity obtain full fair consideration federal claim state courts fay noia harlan dissenting see generally bator finality criminal law federal habeas corpus state prisoners words state judgment entitled absolute respect kuhlmann wilson opinion powell emphasis added federal habeas review even reasonableness rejected principle absolute deference landmark decision brown allen held state judgment conviction res judicata federal habeas respect federal constitutional claims even state rejected claims full fair hearing instead held district must determine whether state adjudication resulted satisfactory conclusion occasion explore detail question whether satisfactory conclusion one habeas considered correct opposed merely reasonable concluded constitutional claims advanced brown fail even state courts rejection reconsidered de novo see nonetheless indicated federal courts enjoy least discretion take consideration fact state previously rejected federal claims asserted habeas see state federal courts responsibilities protect persons violation constitutional rights conclude federal district may decline without rehearing facts award writ habeas corpus state prisoner legality detention determined facts presented highest state jurisdiction influential separate opinion endorsed majority justice frankfurter also rejected principle absolute deference fairly litigated state judgments emphasized state determination federal constitutional law binding federal habeas regardless whether determination involves pure question law mixed questio requiring application law fact nonetheless stated quite explicitly prior state determination may guide discretion district deciding upon appropriate course followed disposing application discussing mixed questions specifically noted need federal judge shut eyes state consideration subsequent cases repeatedly reaffirmed brown teaching mixed constitutional questions open review collateral attack cuyler sullivan without ever explicitly considering whether review de novo deferential cases denied habeas relief even de novo review see strickland washington facts make clear habeas petitioner receive ineffective assistance counsel neil biggers facts disclose substantial likelihood habeas petitioner subjected unreliable pretrial lineup others awarded habeas relief even deferential review see brewer williams facts provide reasonable basis finding valid waiver right counsel irvin dowd facts show clear convincing evidence biased jury yet others remanded application proper legal rule without addressing standard review question see cuyler supra nonetheless cases never qualified early citation brown proposition federal habeas must reexamine mixed constitutional questions independently townsend sain dictum gradually come treat settled rule mixed constitutional questions subject plenary federal review habeas miller fenton jackson contributed trend held conviction violates due process supported evidence rational trier fact find guilt beyond reasonable doubt stated explicitly state judgment applying jackson rule particular case course entitled deference federal habeas see also stevens concurring judgment state judges familiar elements state offenses federal judges better able evaluate sufficiency claims notwithstanding principles however indicated habeas apply jackson rule see rather merely reviewing state courts application reasonableness ultimately though occasion resolve conflicting statements standard review question concluded habeas petitioner entitled relief even de novo application jackson see despite apparent adherence standard de novo habeas review respect mixed constitutional questions implicitly questioned standard least respect pure legal questions recent retroactivity precedents penry lynaugh majority endorsed retroactivity analysis advanced justice plurality teague lane teague habeas petitioner generally benefit new rule criminal procedure announced conviction become final direct appeal see opinion teague defined new rule one dictated precedent existing time defendant conviction became final emphasis original butler mckellar explained definition includes rules susceptible debate among reasonable minds thus state reasonably rejected legal claim asserted habeas petitioner existing law claim seeks benefit new rule butler therefore cognizable habeas teague words federal habeas must defer state decision rejecting claim unless decision patently unreasonable butler supra brennan dissenting teague premised view retroactivity questions habeas corpus proceedings must take account nature function writ described collateral remedy designed substitute direct review opinion quoting mackey harlan concurring judgments part dissenting part emphasis mackey justice stevens reasoned similarly jackson stressed habeas corpus intended substitute appeal device reviewing merits guilt determinations criminal trials guard extreme malfunctions state criminal justice systems opinion concurring judgment see also greer miller stevens concurring judgment indeed notion different standards apply direct collateral review runs throughout recent habeas jurisprudence said example new rules always retroactive application criminal cases pending direct review see griffith kentucky generally retroactive application criminal cases pending habeas see teague supra opinion held constitution guarantees right counsel first direct appeal see douglas california guarantees right counsel habeas see pennsylvania finley direct review announced enforced rule state courts must exclude evidence obtained violation fourth amendment see mapp ohio also held however claims mapp cognizable habeas long state courts provided full fair opportunity litigate trial direct review see stone powell differences simply reflect fact habeas review entails significant costs engle isaac among things disturbs state significant interest repose concluded litigation denies society right punish admitted offenders intrudes state sovereignty degree matched exercises federal judicial authority duckworth eagan concurring quoting harris reed kennedy dissenting various contexts emphasized costs well countervailing benefits must taken consideration defining scope writ see coleman thompson procedural default mccleskey zant abuse writ teague supra opinion retroactivity kuhlmann wilson opinion powell successive petitions stone powell supra cognizability particular claims light principles petitioners ask reconsider statement miller fenton mixed constitutional questions subject plenary federal review habeas terms teague directly controlling west sought federal habeas relief jackson decided year conviction became final direct review nonetheless petitioners contend logic teague makes statement miller untenable petitioners argue deferential review reasonableness strikes appropriate balance respect purely legal claims must strike appropriate balance respect mixed questions well moreover note habeas statute state determination purely factual question must presumed correct overcome convincing evidence unless one eight statutorily enumerated exceptions present makes sense petitioners assert habeas generally review factual determinations legal determinations deferentially review applications law fact de novo finally petitioners find prospect deferential review mixed questions least implicit recent statement teague concerns fully implicated application old rule manner dictated precedent stringer black emphasis added reasons petitioners invite us reaffirm habeas judge need indeed may shut eyes entirely state applications law fact brown allen opinion frankfurter west develops two principal counterarguments first congress implicitly codified de novo standard respect mixed constitutional questions amended habeas statute second de novo federal review necessary vindicate federal constitutional rights need decide issues case brown jackson claim advanced habeas petitioner must fail even assuming state rejection reconsidered de novo whatever appropriate standard review conclude enough evidence support west conviction case west strong two four weeks cardova home burglarized items stolen recovered west home direct examination trial west said nothing frequently bought sold items different flea markets failed offer specific information come acquire stolen items even mention ronnie elkins name pressed details purchases west contradicted repeatedly supposedly bought stolen goods gave vague seemingly evasive answers various questions see supra said remember acquired major household items television set coffee table failed offer explanation whatsoever acquired cardova record player among things moreover testified acquired cardova second television set seller elkins remained unidentified entirely unrelated roughly contemporaneous transaction finally failed produce supporting evidence testimony elkins claimed known years done business regular basis trier fact jury entitled disbelieve west uncorroborated confused testimony evaluating testimony moreover jury entitled discount west credibility account prior felony conviction see code ann sadoski commonwealth take account west demeanor testifying neither appeals may review jury disbelieve west entitled consider whatever concluded perjured testimony affirmative evidence guilt see wilson zafiro posner cert granted grounds dyer macdougall hand jackson emphasized repeatedly deference owed trier fact correspondingly sharply limited nature constitutional sufficiency review said evidence considered light favorable prosecution emphasis original prosecution need affirmatively rule every hypothesis except guilt reviewing faced record historical facts supports conflicting inferences must presume even affirmatively appear record trier fact resolved conflicts favor prosecution must defer resolution ibid standards think clear trial record contained sufficient evidence support west conviction granted relief west jackson claim appeals declined address west additional claim entitled new trial matter due process basis newly discovered evidence see claim properly us decline address judgment appeals reversed case remanded proceedings consistent opinion ordered footnotes items bought flea market well buy items flea market sir whose items items got ronnie elkins items bought ca say ones buy ca say inventory tell ones bought ronnie elkins yes sure ones say platter sea shell mirror yes sir think buy newport news flea market app want know business transactions ronnie elkins buy sell different items different individuals flea markets tell us market richmond gloucester ronnie elkins flea market one say bought items ronnie elkins flea market tell jury sic gloucester tell jury flea market ronnie elkins time around january items items ronnie elkins flea market tell jury ronnie elkins day bought items remember january bought stuff richmond gloucester newport news instruction permissive inference read belie evidence beyond reasonable doubt property value stolen angelo rdova recently thereafter found exclusive personal possession defendant possession unexplained falsely denied defendant possession sufficient raise inference defendant thief inference taking consideration whole evidence leads believe beyond reasonable doubt defendant committed theft shall find defendant guilty app justice offers three criticisms summary history habeas corpus none find convincing first contends litigation standard frank mangum moore dempsey served purpose define scope underlying alleged constitutional violation see post frank moore involved claims rejected state appellate courts trial dominated mob violate due process frank denied relief state appellate decided federal claim correctly relevant question direct review even state appellate decided federal claim reasonably frank federal claims considered competent unbiased state tribunal stone powell moore reaffirmed frank expressly see ordered district consider mob domination claim merits state appellate perfunctory treatment fact acceptable corrective process noia harlan dissenting see also bator harv cases claim habeas petitioner denied due process trial cognizable habeas unless petitioner also denied full fair opportunity raise claim appeal second justice mischaracterize views justice powell history habeas law see post fact however justice powell often recounted exactly familiar history summarize rose mitchell example described frank modestly expanded scope writ order encompass cases defendant federal constitutional claims considered proceeding opinion concurring judgment similarly schneckloth bustamonte described frank extended scope federal habeas corpus permit consideration whether applicant given adequate opportunity state raise constitutional claims concurring opinion neither case kuhlmann justice powell even suggest federal habeas available prisoner received full fair opportunity litigate federal claim state third justice criticizes failure acknowledge salinger loisel describes first case explicitly hold res judicata strictly followed federal habeas post salinger however involved degree preclusive effect habeas judgment upon subsequent habeas petitions filed federal prisoner case course involves degree preclusive effect criminal conviction upon initial habeas petition filed state prisoner fault limiting focus latter context even assuming relevance salinger hardly advances position advocated justice habeas must exercise de novo review respect mixed questions law fact despite acknowledging prior habeas judgment entitled absolute preclusive effect doctrine res judicata salinger also indicated prior habeas judgment may considered even given controlling weight emphasis added justice contends inclusion passage section opinion entitled right plenary hearing makes clear discussing resolution factual questions see post introduction section however indicated factual legal questions issue see noting contentions district committed error took evidence heard argument federal constitutional issues emphasis added indeed factual questions issue authorized denial writ whenever state proceeding resulted satisfactory conclusion emphasis added whenever proceeding resulted satisfactory factfinding justice quotes justice frankfurter proposition district judge habeas must exercise judgment respect mixed questions post quoting although agree justice passage suggests de novo standard easily reconciled justice frankfurter later statement need federal judge shut eyes state consideration mixed question statements reconciled course assumption habeas judge must review state determination reasonableness need attempt defend conclusion detail conclude brown allen establishes deferential review reasonableness brown squarely foreclose disagreement justice brown allen quickly came cited proposition habeas review mixed questions independently several cases since brown applied de novo standard respect pure mixed legal questions de novo standard thus appeared well settled respect categories time decided miller fenton see post despite extended discussion leading cases brown miller however justice offers nothing refute limited observations evidently disagrees unadorned citation brown enough least original matter establish de novo review respect mixed questions none leading cases choice de novo deferential standard justice asserts jackson expressly rejected deferential standard review characterizes much like one urged us petitioners post citing jackson expressly rejected however proposal habeas review foreclosed state courts provide appellate review sufficiency evidence ibid rule course permit habeas review state sufficiency determination understand however petitioners proposal permit limited review reasonableness standard surely consistent statement state determination course entitled deference ibid agree justice jackson applied de novo standard see post nonetheless given statement expressly endorsing notion least limited deference given jackson petitioner lost either de novo standard reasonableness standard agree case expressly rejected latter post justice suggests teague progeny establish standard review post instead contends cases merely prohibit retroactive application new rules habeas establish criterion distinguishing new rules old ones ibid difficulty describing teague case retroactivity rather standards review although dispute justice suggestion difference least practice might well matter phrasing post citation omitted disagree however justice definition constitutes new rule teague purposes rule new contends meaningfully distinguished established binding precedent time state conviction became final post definition leads suggest habeas must determine whether state courts interpreted old precedents properly post precedents however require different standard held rule new teague purposes whenever validity existing precedents subject debate among reasonable minds butler supra among reasonable jurists sawyer smith indeed last four relevant precedents indicated teague insulates habeas review state courts reasonable good faith interpretations existing precedents ibid quoting butler supra saffle parks citing butler see stringer black purpose new rule doctrine validate reasonable interpretations existing precedents thus teague bars habeas relief whenever state courts interpreted old precedents reasonably done properly post justice criticizes failure highlight text fact congress considered failed enact several bills introduced last years prohibit de novo review explicitly see post see also brief senator biden et al amici curiae discussing various proposals task however construe bills congress failed enact construe statutes congress enacted habeas corpus statute last amended see stat grave doubts legislative history value construing provisions often observed views subsequent congress form hazardous basis inferring intent earlier one consumer product safety gte sylvania quoting price compare also sullivan finkelstein acknowledging usual difficulties inherent relying subsequent legislative history scalia concurring part arguments based subsequent legislative history like arguments based antecedent futurity taken seriously justice white concurring judgment jackson virginia required federal courts deny requested writ habeas corpus jackson standard sufficient evidence support west conviction principal opinion amply demonstrates see ante page certainly justice justice blackmun justice stevens join concurring judgment agree evidence sufficiently supported respondent conviction write separately express disagreement certain statements justice thomas extended discussion ante habeas corpus jurisprudence first justice thomas errs describing law habeas corpus ante true state prisoner obtain writ provided full fair hearing state courts rule governed merits claim due process clause threshold bar consideration federal claims rare exceptions federal claims available time period justice thomas discusses guarantees bill rights yet understood apply state criminal prosecutions protections constitution afforded state prisoners text constitution explicitly limited authority notably due process clause fourteenth amendment area criminal procedure due process clause understood guarantee full fair hearing state courts see ponzi fessenden one accused crime right full fair trial according law government whose sovereignty alleged offended thus stated state prisoner afforded full fair hearing obtain writ habeas corpus propounding rule constitutional law threshold requirement habeas corpus evident fact apply rule habeas also cases direct review see snyder massachusetts presence defendant condition due process extent fair hearing thwarted absence extent twining new jersey due process requires assumes determine rights parties shall jurisdiction shall notice opportunity hearing given parties subject two fundamental conditions time sustained state laws statutory judicially declared regulating procedure evidence methods trial held consistent due process law citations omitted long state criminal prosecution fairly conducted competent jurisdiction according state law constitutional question presented whether direct habeas review caldwell texas brown new jersey cases cited justice thomas moore dempsey frank mangum demonstrate absence full fair hearing state courts relevant violation constitution prerequisite federal consideration federal claim cases held trial dominated angry mob inconsistent due process recognized state nevertheless afford due process state appellate courts provided fair opportunity correct error state courts provided opportunity frank moore neither case full fair hearing rule cited deferential standard review applicable habeas cases rule instead defines constitutional claim reviewed de novo see moore supra second justice thomas quotes justice powell opinion kuhlmann wilson context ante justice powell said judgment committing competent jurisdiction accorded absolute respect habeas century habeas inquiry limited jurisdiction kuhlmann supra opinion powell justice powell expressing erroneous view justice thomas today ascribes state judgments entitled complete deference third justice thomas errs implying brown allen first case held doctrine res judicata strictly followed federal habeas ante fact explicitly reached holding first time salinger loisel even salinger break new ground salinger observed rule common law implicitly followed carter mcclaughry ex parte spencer salinger supra reached conclusion least two cases salinger brown see waley johnston darr burford darr spencer like case involved initial federal habeas filings state prisoners fourth justice thomas understates certainty brown allen rejected deferential standard review issues law ante passages brown stated district determine whether state adjudication resulted satisfactory conclusion federal courts discretion give weight state determinations ante passages discussing federal courts resolve questions fact issues law becomes apparent reading relevant section brown section entitled right plenary hearing turned primary legal question presented whether fourteenth amendment permitted restriction jury service taxpayers answered question affirmative without hint deference state courts proper standard review issues law also discussed justice frankfurter opinion majority endorsed recognizing state factfinding need always repeated federal justice frankfurter turned quite different question determining law wrote ascertainment historical facts dispose claim calls interpretation legal significance facts district judge must exercise judgment blend facts legal values thus mixed questions application constitutional principles facts found leave duty adjudication federal judge emphasis added citation omitted justice frankfurter concluded state last say though fair consideration procedurally may deemed fairness may misconceived federal constitutional right fifth justice thomas incorrectly never considered standard review apply mixed questions law fact raised federal habeas ante contrary cases cited justice thomas irvin dowd stated quite clearly mixed questions application constitutional principles facts found leave duty adjudication federal judge therefore duty appeals independently evaluate issue jury prejudice quoting brown allen supra opinion frankfurter proceeded employ precisely legal analysis cases direct appeal townsend sain said lthough district judge may state reliably found relevant facts defer state findings fact may defer findings law district judge duty apply applicable federal law state fact findings independently neil biggers addressed de novo question whether state pretrial identification procedures unconstitutionally suggestive using standard used cases direct appeal substantial likelihood irreparable misidentification quoting simmons brewer williams reviewed de novo state finding defendant waived right counsel held question waiver question historical fact one words justice frankfurter requires application constitutional principles facts found quoting brown allen supra opinion frankfurter employed legal analysis used direct review cuyler sullivan explicitly considered question whether appeals exceeded proper scope review state decision concluded issue presented one historical fact entitled presumption correctness appeals correct reconsidering state application legal principles historical facts case although held appeals erred stating proper legal principle remanded consider case legal principles cases direct review strickland washington held principles governing ineffectiveness claims apply federal collateral proceedings direct appeal motions new trial special standards apply ineffectiveness claims made habeas proceedings distinguished state determinations mixed questions fact law federal courts defer state findings historical fact federal courts defer finally miller fenton recognized unbroken line cases coming direct appeal review applications lower federal courts writ habeas corpus forecloses appeals conclusion voluntariness confession merits something less independent federal consideration list cases cited justice thomas one add following applied standard de novo review leyra denno ex rel jennings ragen rogers richmond gideon wainwright pate robinson sheppard maxwell mcmann richardson lego twomey barker wingo morrissey brewer gagnon scarpelli schneckloth bustamonte manson brathwaite watkins sowders jones barnes berkemer mccarty moran burbine kimmelman morrison maynard cartwright duckworth eagan many others sixth justice thomas misdescribes jackson virginia ante jackson respondents proposed deferential standard review much like one justice thomas discusses today thought appropriate addressing constitutional claims insufficient evidence expressly rejected proposal ibid instead adhered general rule de novo review constitutional claims habeas seventh justice thomas mischaracterizes teague lane penry lynaugh questioning th standard de novo review respect pure legal questions ante teague establish deferential standard review state determinations federal law establish standard review instead teague simply requires state conviction federal habeas judged according law existence conviction became final penry supra teague supra teague refused give state prisoners retroactive benefit new rules law create deferential standard review regard old rules determine counts new rule teague requires courts ask whether rule habeas petitioner seeks meaningfully distinguished established binding precedent time state conviction became final cf mackey inquiry determine whether particular decision really announced new rule whether simply applied constitutional principle govern case closely analogous previously considered prior case law harlan concurring judgments part dissenting part internal quotation marks omitted emphasis added even though characterized new rule inquiry whether reasonable jurists disagree whether result dictated precedent see sawyer smith standard determining case establishes new rule objective mere existence conflicting authority necessarily mean rule new stringer black proffered factual distinction case consideration preexisting precedent change force precedent underlying principle applies distinction meaningful deviation precedent reasonable justice thomas says defer state courts determinations federal law statement misleading although practice may seem matter phrasing whether one calls teague inquiry standard review phrasing mirrors thought important phrasing obscure true issue federal brown allen opinion frankfurter justice kennedy convincingly demonstrates duty federal evaluating whether rule new deference federal courts must make independent evaluation precedent existing time state conviction became final order determine whether case consideration meaningfully distinguishable teague direct federal courts spend less time effort scrutinizing existing federal law ground assume state courts interpreted properly eighth though justice thomas suggests otherwise ante de novo review incompatible maxim federal courts give great weight considered conclusions coequal state judiciary miller fenton persuasive authority district circuit courts jurisdictions state opinion concerning legal implications precisely set facts closest one get case point especially valuable reason mean held past federal courts must presume correctness state legal conclusions habeas state incorrect legal determination ever allowed stand reasonable always held federal courts even habeas independent obligation say law finally summary respondent arguments ante justice thomas fails mention congress considered habeas corpus legislation past years occasions considered adopting deferential standard review along lines suggested justice thomas congress rejected proposal light case law congress position move away de novo review mixed questions law fact substantial change construction authority conferred habeas corpus statute justice thomas acknowledges change standard review indeed ante need decide whether order resolve case justice kennedy concurring judgment enter debate reasons took us point mixed constitutional questions subject de novo review federal habeas corpus proceedings whatever answer difficult historical inquiry agree least prior adoption retroactivity analysis teague lane see penry lynaugh matter settled seems real issue dividing colleagues whether retroactivity analysis teague casts doubt upon rule miller fenton even petitioner state virginia amicus curiae seeking deferential standard respect mixed questions recognize standard review question arises see brief petitioners notion state prisoner right de novo federal collateral review constitutional claims surely survived decisions teague progeny brief amicus curiae prior rule established teague later cases applying teague often treated mixed questions law fact subject independent review federal habeas corpus vindication principles underlying teague require rulings mixed questions must given deference federal habeas proceeding indeed might said teague line cases collision course miller fenton line proper case select one expense view neither purpose teague adopted necessary means implementing holding creates real conflict requirement de novo review mixed questions view misreading teague interpret resting necessity defer determinations teague establish deferential standard review decisions federal law established instead principle retroactivity see teague lane supra adopt justice harlan view retroactivity cases collateral review sure fact standard distinguishing old rules new ones turns reasonableness state interpretation existing precedents suggests federal courts one sense defer determinations lose sight purpose reasonableness inquiry teague issue raised purpose determine whether application new rule upset conviction obtained accordance constitutional interpretations existing time prisoner conviction explained earlier term petitioner seeks federal habeas relief based upon principle announced final judgment teague subsequent decisions interpreting require federal answer initial question cases second first must determined whether decision relied upon announced new rule answer yes neither exception applies decision available petitioner however decision announce new rule necessary inquire whether granting relief sought create new rule prior decision applied novel setting thereby extending precedent interests finality predictability comity underlying new rule jurisprudence may undermined equal degree invocation rule dictated precedent application old rule manner dictated precedent stringer black citation omitted teague bear applications law fact result announcement new rule whether prisoner seeks application old rule novel setting see stringer supra depends large part nature rule rule question one necessity requires examination evidence tolerate number specific applications without saying applications create new rule rule jackson virginia example terms provides general standard calls examination facts standard whether rational trier fact found guilt beyond reasonable doubt review evidence course variations case case beginning point rule general application rule designed specific purpose evaluating myriad factual contexts infrequent case yields result novel forges new rule one dictated precedent although general matter new rules applied announced habeas proceedings penry requirement engage threshold teague inquiry case clear prisoner entitled relief seeks even case pending direct review see collins youngblood therefore necessary resolution case consider oddity reversing respondent conviction quite determination insufficient evidence arguable effect undercutting general principle virginia elsewhere trier fact may infer theft unexplained falsely denied possession recently stolen goods whether holding insufficient evidence constitute one unusual cases application jackson create new rule need addressed premises existence teague provides added justification retaining de novo review reason abandon teague gives substantial assurance habeas proceedings use new rule upset state conviction conformed rules existing safeguard place recognizing importance finality de novo review exercised within proper sphere foregoing reasons interpret teague calling question settled principle mixed questions subject plenary review federal habeas corpus reasons mentioned think necessary consider whether respondent brings one unusual jackson claims agree evidence case sufficient convince rational factfinder guilt beyond reasonable doubt concur judgment justice souter concurring judgment disagree majority sufficient evidence supported west conviction see ante think reach issue often said principles first developed teague lane pose threshold question federal habeas review answer favorable prisoner address merits see collins youngblood penry lynaugh teague supra plurality opinion habeas case begins teague question answer favor west go cases line teague lane supra two narrow exceptions relevant federal courts conducting collateral review may announce apply new rule state prisoner benefit butler mckellar teague supra plurality opinion new rule one dictated precedent existing time defendant conviction became final sawyer smith quoting teague supra plurality opinion emphasis original put differently enquiry asks whether state considering prisoner claim time conviction became final felt compelled existing precedent conclude rule prisoner seeks required constitution saffle parks put differently yet reasonable jurists might disagree steps law take next later development grounds relief sawyer smith supra see also butler supra susceptible debate among reasonable minds teague line cases reflects recognition important interests comity finality teague supra plurality opinion one purpose federal collateral review judgments rendered state courts criminal cases create incentive state courts conduct proceedings manner consistent established constitutional standards butler supra quoting teague supra plurality opinion new rule principle recognizes purpose validat ing reasonable good faith interpretations existing precedents made state courts even though shown contrary later decisions butler supra citing leon crux analysis teague invoked identification rule claim habeas relief depends survive teague must old enough predated finality prisoner conviction specific enough dictate rule conviction may held unlawful rule old enough teague may course general identifying required age rule relief simple matter comparing dates passing requisite specificity calls analytical care proper response prisoner invocation rule high level generality well illustrated cases butler supra example prisoner relied rule arizona roberson announced butler conviction become final held roberson fifth amendment forbids police interrogation crime suspect requests counsel even request occurs course investigating different unrelated crime butler argued invoke roberson rule merely application edwards arizona held person custody suspicion crime police must stop questioning crime invokes right counsel slightly different set facts rejected argument saying illogical even grudging application edwards decide extend facts roberson likewise sawyer supra petitioner sought benefit caldwell mississippi announced sawyer conviction final held caldwell eighth amendment prohibits resting death sentence determination made sentencer led believe responsibility determining appropriateness defendant death rests elsewhere sawyer argued entitled benefit caldwell rule dictated principle reliability capital sentencing sawyer supra said established cases announced conviction became final eddings oklahoma lockett ohio among rejected argument saying teague test meaningless applied level generality cf anderson creighton test clearly established law applied level generality laintiffs able convert rule qualified immunity cases plainly establish rule virtually unqualified liability simply alleging violation extremely abstract rights internal quotation brackets original sum cases recognized interests finality predictability comity underlying new rule jurisprudence may undermined equal degree invocation rule dictated precedent application old rule manner dictated precedent stringer black mean course habeas petitioner must able point old case decided facts identical facts mean light authority extant conviction became final unlawfulness must apparent cf anderson creighton ii case appeals overruled commonwealth teague objection saying west merely claimed evidence insufficient support conviction result sought dictated jackson virginia case announced petitioner conviction became final teague purposes thus surmounted teague time hurdle went say evidence consisted entirely facts value goods stolen december december found january exclusive possession west coupled west testimony explaining possession come purchases interval applied context held unadorned jackson norm translated specific rule announced cosby jones held evidence unexplained unconvincingly explained possession recently stolen goods without sufficient prove theft must weighed exactly asking five questions possession recent relative crime large majority stolen items found defendant possession defendant attempt conceal stolen items defendant explanation even discredited jury implausible demonstrably false give rise positive evidence favor government corroborating evidence supporting conviction quoting cosby supra applying cosby facts case appeals found five factors either neutral advantageous west two four weeks elapsed theft possession described testimony time period consistent west explanation bought goods interval measured value mere third cardova belongings surfaced west possession stolen items found plain view west home third person testimony corroborating west explanation west exhibited confusion exact circumstances purchases maintained general explanation purchased items flea markets nothing inherently implausible explanation finally evidence corroborating theft west appeals concluded evidence assessed entirety light favorable prosecution sufficient persuade rational trier fact west guilt clear appeals misapplied commands teague defining rule west sought benefit unduly elevated level generality course doubt reviewing west conviction virginia entitled disregard jackson antedated finality west conviction jackson rule sufficiency depends whether rational trier viewing evidence favorably prosecution find elements beyond reasonable doubt follow insufficiency evidence support west conviction apparent virginia courts long recognized rule evidence unexplained falsely explained possession recently stolen goods sufficient sustain finding possessor took goods see montgomery commonwealth henderson commonwealth bazemore commonwealth bright commonwealth app case concerned virginia rule second prong west took stand gave explanation jury rejected thereby implying finding explanation false thus portion state rule attack falsely explained recent possession suffices identify possessor thief rule virtue much common sense utterly reasonable conclude possessor recently stolen goods lies got thief took come surprise rule accepted good law backdrop general state sufficiency standard less stringent jackson see bishop commonwealth inge commonwealth simply insupportable say reasonable jurists considered rule compatible jackson standard doubt therefore federal courts west sought benefit new rule claim barred teague ground respectfully concur judgment analysis ends case without reaching historical questions take position disagreement justice thomas justice appeals overlooked west st testified came possession cardova goods around january see app thus accurate estimate time lapse one three weeks jury finding must course accepted jackson virginia requirement judge sufficiency viewing evidence light favorable prosecution