white
warden
woodall
argued
december
decided
april
respondent
pleaded
guilty
capital
murder
capital
kidnaping
rape
statutory
aggravating
circumstance
murder
sentenced
death
trial
denied
defense
counsel
request
instruct
jury
draw
adverse
inference
respondent
decision
testify
penalty
phase
kentucky
affirmed
finding
fifth
amendment
requirement
instruction
protect
nontestifying
defendant
guilt
phase
see
carter
kentucky
required
penalty
phase
subsequently
federal
district
granted
respondent
habeas
relief
holding
trial
refusal
give
requested
instruction
violated
respondent
privilege
sixth
circuit
affirmed
held
kentucky
rejection
respondent
fifth
amendment
claim
objectively
unreasonable
sixth
circuit
erred
granting
writ
pp
standard
permits
grant
federal
habeas
relief
claim
already
adjudicated
merits
state
adjudication
resulted
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
learly
established
federal
includes
holdings
decisions
howes
fields
unreasonable
application
holdings
must
unreasonable
lockyer
andrade
ruling
must
rest
error
well
understood
comprehended
existing
law
beyond
possibility
fairminded
disagreement
harrington
richter
kentucky
conclusion
contrary
holdings
carter
supra
required
instruction
guilt
phase
estelle
smith
concerned
introduction
penalty
phase
results
involuntary
pretrial
psychiatric
examination
mitchell
disapproved
trial
judge
drawing
adverse
inference
defendant
silence
sentencing
regard
factual
determinations
respecting
circumstances
details
crime
kentucky
conclusion
unreasonable
application
holdings
cases
need
decide
whether
instruction
required
circumstances
issue
kentucky
minimum
beyond
possibility
fairminded
disagreement
harrington
supra
mitchell
particular
leaves
open
possibility
inferences
might
permissibly
drawn
defendant
silence
thus
read
require
type
blanket
instruction
requested
denied
moreover
respondent
admissions
guilt
established
every
relevant
fact
kentucky
bore
burden
proof
mitchell
narrow
holding
implied
limited
inferences
pertaining
facts
crime
apply
pp
respondent
contends
state
unreasonable
refusing
extend
governing
legal
principle
context
controlled
never
adopted
rule
section
provides
remedy
instances
state
unreasonably
applies
precedent
require
state
courts
extend
precedent
license
federal
courts
treat
failure
error
appropriate
time
consider
matter
first
impression
whether
carter
estelle
mitchell
require
instruction
direct
review
habeas
case
governed
pp
reversed
remanded
scalia
delivered
opinion
roberts
kennedy
thomas
alito
kagan
joined
breyer
filed
dissenting
opinion
ginsburg
sotomayor
joined
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
randy
white
warden
petitioner
robert
keith
woodall
writ
certiorari
appeals
sixth
circuit
april
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
respondent
brutally
raped
slashed
box
cutter
drowned
student
pleading
guilty
murder
rape
kidnaping
sentenced
death
kentucky
affirmed
sentence
denied
certiorari
ten
years
later
appeals
sixth
circuit
granted
respondent
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
fifth
amendment
claim
disregarded
limitations
provision
law
federal
judges
find
confining
federal
judges
must
obey
reverse
evening
january
sarah
hansen
drove
convenience
store
rent
movie
failed
return
home
several
hours
later
family
called
police
officers
eventually
found
vehicle
hansen
driving
short
distance
convenience
store
followed
trail
blood
van
nearby
lake
hansen
unclothed
dead
body
found
floating
water
hansen
throat
slashed
twice
cut
approximately
inches
long
er
windpipe
totally
severed
woodall
commonwealth
authorities
questioned
respondent
learned
convenience
store
night
murder
respondent
gave
conflicting
statements
regarding
whereabouts
evening
investigation
revealed
respondent
fingerprints
van
victim
driving
lood
found
respondent
front
door
lood
clothing
sweatshirt
consistent
blood
victim
dna
vaginal
swabs
taken
victim
consistent
respondent
ibid
faced
overwhelming
evidence
guilt
respondent
pleaded
guilty
capital
murder
also
pleaded
guilty
capital
kidnaping
rape
statutory
aggravating
circumstance
murder
see
app
rev
stat
ann
west
supp
ensuing
trial
respondent
called
character
witnesses
declined
testify
defense
counsel
asked
trial
judge
instruct
jury
defendant
compelled
testify
fact
defendant
testify
prejudice
way
app
trial
judge
denied
request
kentucky
affirmed
denial
woodall
commonwealth
supra
recognizing
fifth
amendment
requires
instruction
protect
nontestifying
defendant
guilt
phase
see
carter
kentucky
held
carter
subsequent
cases
require
instruction
woodall
commonwealth
supra
denied
respondent
petition
writ
certiorari
direct
appeal
woodall
kentucky
respondent
filed
petition
habeas
corpus
federal
district
district
granted
relief
holding
relevant
trial
refusal
issue
instruction
penalty
phase
violated
respondent
fifth
amendment
privilege
woodall
simpson
wd
app
pet
cert
wl
appeals
affirmed
ordered
kentucky
either
resentence
respondent
within
days
release
woodall
simpson
judge
cook
dissented
granted
certiorari
ii
section
title
provides
application
writ
habeas
corpus
behalf
person
custody
pursuant
judgment
state
shall
granted
respect
claim
adjudicated
merits
state
proceedings
unless
adjudication
claim
resulted
decision
contrary
involved
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
federal
law
determined
standard
recently
reminded
sixth
circuit
meet
metrish
lancaster
slip
learly
established
federal
purposes
includes
holdings
opposed
dicta
decisions
howes
fields
slip
quoting
williams
taylor
unreasonable
application
holdings
must
merely
wrong
even
clear
error
suffice
lockyer
andrade
rather
condition
obtaining
habeas
corpus
federal
state
prisoner
must
show
state
ruling
claim
presented
federal
lacking
justification
error
well
understood
comprehended
existing
law
beyond
possibility
fairminded
disagreement
harrington
richter
slip
kentucky
appeals
identified
relevant
precedents
area
decisions
carter
estelle
smith
mitchell
carter
held
instruction
required
guilt
phase
estelle
concerned
introduction
penalty
phase
results
involuntary
pretrial
psychiatric
examination
mitchell
disapproved
trial
judge
drawing
adverse
inference
defendant
silence
sentencing
regard
factual
determinations
respecting
circumstances
details
crime
clear
kentucky
conclusion
contrary
actual
holding
cases
appeals
held
however
kentucky
denial
constitutional
claim
unreasonable
application
cases
view
reading
carter
estelle
mitchell
together
reasonable
conclusion
instruction
required
penalty
phase
need
decide
express
view
whether
conclusion
instruction
required
correct
case
reviewed
lens
satisfied
issue
minimum
beyond
possibility
fairminded
disagreement
harrington
supra
slip
true
held
privilege
applies
penalty
phase
see
estelle
supra
mitchell
supra
uncommon
constitutional
rule
apply
somewhat
differently
penalty
phase
guilt
phase
see
bobby
mitts
per
curiam
slip
never
directly
held
carter
applies
sentencing
phase
fifth
amendment
interests
defendant
different
whitten
livingston
dissenting
denial
rehearing
en
banc
indeed
mitchell
leaves
open
possibility
inferences
might
permissibly
drawn
defendant
silence
case
district
judge
actually
drawn
defendant
silence
adverse
inference
drug
quantity
attributable
defendant
see
held
ran
afoul
defendant
right
remain
silent
sentencing
citing
griffin
california
framed
holding
narrowly
terms
implying
limited
inferences
pertaining
facts
crime
decline
adopt
exception
sentencing
phase
case
regard
factual
determinations
respecting
circumstances
details
crime
mitchell
emphasis
added
government
retains
said
burden
proving
facts
relevant
crime
enlist
defendant
process
expense
privilege
emphasis
added
mitchell
included
express
reservation
direct
relevance
whether
silence
bears
upon
determination
lack
remorse
upon
acceptance
responsibility
purposes
downward
adjustment
provided
sentencing
guidelines
separate
question
us
express
view
mitchell
reservation
relevant
two
reasons
first
mitchell
suggests
actual
inferences
might
permissible
penalty
phase
certainly
read
require
blanket
instruction
every
trial
blanket
instruction
requested
denied
case
respondent
requested
instruction
informed
jury
defendant
compelled
testify
fact
defendant
testify
prejudice
way
app
emphasis
added
counsel
respondent
conceded
oral
argument
remorse
issue
trial
see
tr
oral
arg
see
also
brief
respondent
yet
proposed
instruction
precluded
jury
considering
respondent
silence
indicative
lack
remorse
indeed
trial
judge
declined
give
instruction
precisely
aware
case
law
precludes
jury
considering
defendant
lack
expression
remorse
sentencing
app
alone
suffices
establish
kentucky
conclusion
objectively
unreasonable
andrade
second
regardless
scope
respondent
proposed
instruction
inferences
drawn
respondent
silence
arguably
fall
within
class
inferences
mitchell
leaves
door
open
respondent
pleaded
guilty
charges
faced
including
applicable
aggravating
circumstances
thus
kentucky
shifted
respondent
burden
proving
facts
relevant
crime
respondent
admissions
already
established
every
relevant
fact
kentucky
bore
burden
proof
reasonable
arguments
logic
mitchell
apply
cases
see
ronquillo
mitchell
inapplicable
sentencing
decision
case
facts
offense
based
entirely
ronquillo
admissions
adverse
inference
ronquillo
unlike
defendant
mitchell
admitted
predicate
facts
offenses
dissent
insists
mitchell
irrelevant
merely
declined
create
exception
normal
rule
supposedly
established
estelle
defendant
entitled
requested
instruction
sentencing
post
opinion
breyer
argument
disregards
perfectly
reasonable
interpretations
estelle
mitchell
hence
contravenes
deferential
standard
review
estelle
involve
adverse
inference
based
defendant
silence
corresponding
jury
instruction
see
thus
whatever
estelle
said
fifth
amendment
aspect
decision
relevant
requir
categorical
rule
dissent
ascribes
carey
musladin
likewise
fairminded
jurists
conclude
mitchell
reservation
regarding
remorse
acceptance
responsibility
served
meaningful
purpose
estelle
created
rule
adverse
inferences
hardly
habit
reserving
separate
question
mitchell
supra
already
definitively
answered
circumstances
right
remain
state
courts
enjoy
broad
discretion
adjudication
prisoner
claims
lockyer
quoting
harmelin
michigan
kennedy
concurring
part
judgment
arguing
contrary
result
respondent
leans
heavily
notion
may
set
aside
clearly
established
federal
law
state
unreasonable
refusing
extend
governing
legal
principle
context
principle
controlled
brief
respondent
quoting
ramdass
angelone
plurality
opinion
appeals
district
relied
proposition
sustaining
respondent
fifth
amendment
claim
see
app
pet
cert
wl
concept
originated
fourth
circuit
opinion
discussed
length
williams
first
analysis
antiterrorism
effective
death
penalty
act
aedpa
see
citing
green
french
described
fourth
circuit
interpretation
unreasonable
application
clause
generally
correct
approved
conclusion
decision
involves
unreasonable
application
precedent
state
identifies
correct
governing
legal
rule
unreasonably
applies
facts
particular
state
prisoner
case
citing
green
supra
took
position
fourth
circuit
conclusion
state
commits
aedpa
error
unreasonably
refuse
extend
legal
principle
new
context
apply
citing
green
supra
chose
decide
legal
principle
cases
treated
fourth
circuit
proposed
rule
resolving
presented
several
problems
precision
two
months
later
plurality
paraphrased
applied
concept
ramdass
see
however
grant
habeas
petitioner
relief
basis
finding
unreasonable
refusal
extend
moreover
justice
whose
vote
necessary
form
majority
cited
williams
made
mention
concept
separate
opinion
concurring
judgment
see
ramdass
therefore
alter
interpretation
set
forth
williams
aside
one
opinion
criticizing
doctrine
see
yarborough
alvarado
revisited
issue
since
williams
ramdass
stretch
however
repeatedly
restated
hold
ing
williams
supra
decision
unreasonable
application
clearly
established
precedent
correctly
identifies
governing
legal
rule
applies
rule
unreasonably
facts
particular
prisoner
case
see
cullen
pinholster
slip
rompilla
beard
yarborough
supra
penry
johnson
thus
never
adopted
rule
respondent
relies
much
endorsed
majority
opinion
let
alone
relied
basis
granting
habeas
relief
extent
rule
differs
one
embraced
williams
reiterated
many
times
since
reject
section
provides
remedy
instances
state
unreasonably
applies
precedent
require
state
courts
extend
precedent
license
federal
courts
treat
failure
error
see
scheidegger
corpus
relitigation
legislative
power
colum
rev
thus
habeas
must
extend
rationale
apply
facts
hand
definition
rationale
clearly
established
time
decision
yarborough
aedpa
carefully
constructed
framework
undermined
habeas
courts
introduced
rules
clearly
established
guise
extensions
existing
law
ibid
say
requires
factual
pattern
legal
rule
must
applied
panetti
quarterman
contrary
state
courts
must
reasonably
apply
rules
squarely
established
holdings
facts
case
knowles
mirzayance
difference
applying
rule
extending
always
clear
ertain
principles
fundamental
enough
new
factual
permutations
arise
necessity
apply
earlier
rule
beyond
doubt
yarborough
supra
critical
point
relief
available
clause
obvious
clearly
established
rule
applies
given
set
facts
fairminded
disagreement
question
harrington
slip
perhaps
logical
next
step
carter
estelle
mitchell
hold
fifth
amendment
requires
instruction
case
like
one
perhaps
either
way
yet
taken
step
reasonable
arguments
sides
kentucky
needs
prevail
aedpa
case
appropriate
time
consider
question
matter
first
impression
direct
review
habeas
case
governed
kentucky
rejection
respondent
fifth
amendment
claim
objectively
unreasonable
sixth
circuit
erred
granting
writ
therefore
need
reach
holding
trial
putative
error
harmless
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
breyer
dissenting
randy
white
warden
petitioner
robert
keith
woodall
writ
certiorari
appeals
sixth
circuit
april
justice
breyer
justice
ginsburg
justice
sotomayor
join
dissenting
penalty
phase
capital
murder
trial
respondent
robert
woodall
asked
instruct
jury
draw
adverse
inferences
failure
testify
refused
kentucky
agreed
instruction
warranted
question
us
whether
kentucky
courts
unreasonably
applied
clearly
established
law
concluding
fifth
amendment
entitle
woodall
instruction
see
view
answer
yes
decisions
carter
kentucky
estelle
smith
clearly
establish
criminal
defendant
entitled
requested
instruction
penalty
phase
capital
trial
first
consider
carter
held
trial
judge
constitutional
obligation
upon
proper
request
give
requested
instruction
order
minimize
danger
jury
give
evidentiary
weight
defendant
failure
testify
jury
left
roam
large
untutored
instincts
guide
may
draw
defendant
silence
broad
inferences
guilt
trial
refusal
give
requested
instruction
thus
exacts
impermissible
toll
full
free
exercise
fifth
amendment
privilege
consider
estelle
held
far
protection
fifth
amendment
privilege
concerned
discern
basis
distinguish
guilt
penalty
phases
defendant
capital
murder
trial
state
introduced
penalty
phase
defendant
compelled
statements
psychiatrist
order
show
defendant
future
dangerousness
defending
admission
statements
state
argued
defendant
entitled
protection
fifth
amendment
statements
used
determine
punishment
conviction
establish
guilt
rejected
state
argument
ground
fifth
amendment
applies
equally
penalty
phase
guilt
phase
capital
trial
unclear
resulting
law
holds
case
first
amendment
prohibits
congress
discriminating
based
viewpoint
holds
case
fourteenth
amendment
incorporates
first
amendment
clear
first
amendment
prohibits
discriminating
based
viewpoint
logic
held
carter
fifth
amendment
requires
trial
judge
give
requested
instruction
guilt
phase
trial
held
estelle
basis
distinguishing
guilt
punishment
phases
capital
trial
purposes
fifth
amendment
clear
fifth
amendment
requires
judge
provide
requested
instruction
penalty
phase
capital
trial
ii
avoids
logic
reading
estelle
narrowly
first
contends
estelle
holding
fifth
amendment
applies
equally
guilt
penalty
phases
mere
dictum
ante
rule
essential
resolution
case
binding
precedent
dictum
second
apparently
alternative
majority
acknowledges
estelle
held
privilege
applies
penalty
phase
concludes
estelle
said
nothing
content
privilege
penalty
phase
ante
emphasis
added
interpretation
estelle
ignores
rationale
reason
estelle
concluded
fifth
amendment
applies
penalty
phase
capital
trial
saw
basis
distinguish
guilt
penalty
phases
defendant
capital
murder
trial
far
protection
fifth
amendment
privilege
concerned
basis
distinguish
two
contexts
fifth
amendment
purposes
basis
varying
either
application
content
fifth
amendment
privilege
two
contexts
majority
also
reads
decision
mitchell
change
legal
landscape
expressly
declined
mitchell
considered
whether
create
exception
normal
rule
criminal
case
negative
inference
defendant
failure
testify
permitted
refused
decline
adopt
exception
sentencing
phase
criminal
case
regard
factual
determinations
respecting
circumstances
details
crime
ibid
mitchell
thus
reiterated
carter
estelle
already
established
normal
rule
fifth
amendment
protections
apply
trial
sentencing
refused
adopt
exception
default
rule
ibid
emphasis
added
law
mitchell
remained
majority
seizes
upon
limited
nature
mitchell
holding
concluding
refusing
adopt
exception
normal
rule
certain
factual
determinations
mitchell
suggested
inferences
matters
might
permissible
penalty
phase
ante
majority
seems
believe
mitchell
somehow
casts
doubt
upon
whether
estelle
fifth
amendment
rule
applies
matters
unrelated
circumstances
details
crime
remorse
state
bear
burden
proof
initial
matter
mitchell
overrule
least
substantially
limit
estelle
create
exception
matters
unrelated
circumstances
details
crime
matters
defendant
bears
burden
proof
sentencing
proceedings
particularly
capital
sentencing
proceedings
often
focus
factual
matters
directly
concern
facts
crime
defendant
subject
flagrant
abuse
years
suffering
severe
physical
mental
impairment
supportive
family
remorseful
estelle
involved
compelled
statements
introduced
establish
defendant
future
dangerousness
another
fact
often
unrelated
circumstances
details
defendant
crime
addition
typically
place
burden
prove
mitigating
factors
penalty
phase
defendant
reasonable
jurist
believe
mitchell
refusing
create
exception
estelle
intended
undermine
case
reaffirmed
mitchell
held
simply
normal
rule
estelle
applied
circumstances
particular
case
holding
destabilize
settled
law
beyond
reach
frequently
resist
reaching
beyond
facts
case
us
often
say
mean
throw
cases
involving
factual
circumstances
legal
doubt
majority
also
places
undue
weight
dictum
mitchell
reserving
judgment
whether
create
additional
exceptions
normal
rule
estelle
carter
noted
whether
silence
bears
upon
determination
lack
remorse
upon
acceptance
responsibility
purposes
downward
adjustment
provided
sentencing
guidelines
separate
question
us
express
view
dictum
says
majority
suggests
inferences
including
remorse
issue
woodall
case
may
permissible
ante
merely
reserves
question
us
future
case
cast
doubt
legal
principles
already
clearly
established
often
identifies
questions
answering
order
clarify
question
answering
express
ing
view
questions
squarely
us
create
state
uncertainty
questions
respect
mitchell
reserved
question
whether
create
exception
normal
rule
doubly
true
normal
rule
defendant
entitled
requested
instruction
penalty
phase
well
guilt
phase
remained
clearly
established
mitchell
iii
holding
kentucky
courts
unreasonably
apply
clearly
established
law
majority
declares
must
extend
rationale
case
order
apply
rationale
clearly
established
ante
read
mean
simply
may
fairminded
disagreement
whether
rationale
applies
certain
set
facts
state
unreasonably
apply
law
failing
apply
rationale
agree
see
harrington
richter
understand
majority
suggest
reading
two
legal
principles
together
necessarily
extend
law
proposition
entirely
inconsistent
case
law
long
fairminded
jurists
conclude
two
legal
rules
considered
together
dictate
particular
outcome
state
unreasonably
applies
law
holds
otherwise
ibid
error
kentucky
committed
failing
consider
together
legal
principles
established
carter
estelle
state
confined
cases
facts
held
carter
apply
woodall
already
pleaded
guilty
woodall
requested
instruction
penalty
phase
rather
guilt
phase
trial
woodall
commonwealth
concluded
estelle
apply
estelle
jury
instruction
case
kentucky
unreasonably
failed
recognize
together
carter
estelle
compel
requested
instruction
penalty
phase
capital
trial
reading
mitchell
rein
law
contemplation
exceptions
normal
rule
unreasonable
retraction
clearly
established
law
proper
failure
extend
sixth
circuit
correctly
applied
clearly
established
law
granting
woodall
habeas
petition
affirm
respect
dissent
contrary
conclusion
footnotes
appeals
reach
alternative
ground
district
decision
respondent
claim
based
batson
kentucky
see
claim
us
appeals
also
based
conclusion
respondent
entitled
receive
adverse
inference
instruction
one
cases
finney
rothgerber
internal
quotation
marks
omitted
improper
cautioned
sixth
circuit
two
terms
ago
lower
may
consul
precedents
rather
assessing
habeas
claim
governed
parker
matthews
per
curiam
slip
courts
appeals
recognized
mitchell
left
unresolved
diverging
approaches
question
illustrate
possibility
fairminded
disagreement
compare
caro
direct
appeal
noting
mitchell
reserved
question
whether
silence
bears
upon
lack
remorse
reasoning
estelle
mitchell
together
suggest
fifth
amendment
may
well
prohibit
considering
defendant
silence
regarding
nonstatutory
aggravating
factor
lack
remorse
burr
pollard
habeas
right
remain
silent
persists
sentencing
silence
consistent
exercising
one
constitutional
right
also
lack
remorse
properly
considered
sentencing
citing
mitchell
lee
crouse
habeas
circuit
courts
readily
confined
mitchell
stated
holding
allowed
sentencing
courts
rely
draw
inferences
defendant
exercise
fifth
amendment
rights
purposes
determining
facts
offense
conviction
indeed
sixth
circuit
previously
recognized
mitchell
explicitly
limited
holding
regarding
inferences
drawn
defendant
silence
facts
substantive
offense
address
inferences
may
drawn
defendant
silence
kennedy
direct
appeal
kennedy
upheld
mitchell
sentencing
judge
consideration
defendant
refusal
complete
psychosexual
examination
dissent
says
estelle
held
far
protection
fifth
amendment
concerned
basis
distinguish
guilt
penalty
phases
defendant
murder
trial
post
quoting
estelle
course
hold
rather
held
defendant
fifth
amendment
rights
abridged
state
introduction
pretrial
psychiatric
evaluation
administered
without
preliminary
warning
required
miranda
arizona
event
even
estelle
dictum
assume
entitlement
blanket
instruction
quoted
language
reasonably
read
referring
availability
fifth
amendment
privilege
sentencing
rather
precise
scope
privilege
applied
sentencing
context
indeed
appears
passage
responding
state
argument
defendant
entitled
protection
fifth
amendment
first
place