Whether a state trial court's refusal to instruct a jury on the "attenuation" of confessions violates clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1). Specifically, the Court considers if the rule in *Missouri v. Seibert* requires a trial judge to explain to a jury whether post-warning confessions are tainted by a prior involuntary confession. The issue is whether the Second Circuit exceeded its authority under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) by granting habeas relief on this basis.

• The Second Circuit exceeded the role prescribed by AEDPA by disturbing a state-court conviction based on an evaluation of the evidence.
• The trial court's response to the jury note was correct under New York law.
• *Missouri v. Seibert* does not govern jury instructions or the jury's assessment of attenuation.
• Federal habeas courts are prohibited from reexamining state-court determinations on state-law questions.

• The trial court's response to the jury note violated clearly established federal law by failing to explain the rule adopted by Justice Kennedy in *Missouri v. Seibert*.
• The "thrust" of *Seibert* is relevant to juries deciding voluntariness under New York's code of criminal procedure.
• The trial court's "manifestly inaccurate" answer to the jury denied him due process.
• *Seibert* must control the jury's consideration of attenuation because New York law vests juries with the responsibility to assess that issue.

• The Court applied 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1), which permits habeas relief only if a state court decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law."
• Relying on *White v. Woodall*, the Court noted that only the holdings of the Supreme Court clearly establish federal law.
• The Court held that the Federal Constitution does not require both a judge and a jury to pass upon the admissibility or voluntariness of evidence when constitutional grounds are asserted, citing *Lego v. Twomey*.
• The Court reasoned that *Missouri v. Seibert* does not create a federal right to a jury instruction on attenuation because that case concerned a trial court's ruling on a suppression motion, not a jury's assessment.
• The Court found that the Due Process Clause does not require a trial court to explain to a jury an issue that the jury is not required to decide, citing *Estelle v. McGuire* and *Cupp v. Naughten*.
• The Court emphasized that "state-court determinations on state-law questions" are "no part of a federal court’s habeas review," citing *Estelle v. McGuire*.
• The Court concluded that the Second Circuit erred by treating *Seibert* as a rule applicable to juries rather than a rule for judges determining admissibility.
• The Court determined that the Second Circuit's evaluation of the reliability of the confessions was an impermissible use of AEDPA authority.