Supreme Court of the United States

McCarthy v. Hernandez

June 22, 2026146 S.Ct. 1873

Summary

The Court held per curiam that AEDPA did not permit habeas relief based on the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury about attenuation under Missouri v. Seibert. No clearly established Supreme Court holding required such an instruction, and federal habeas courts could not second-guess the state courts’ determination that New York law did not assign attenuation questions to the jury. The Court reversed the Second Circuit’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would have denied certiorari; none wrote a separate opinion.

Holding

  • Whether Seibert clearly established a federal right to jury instructions on attenuation of subsequent confessions.. No clearly established federal law required the trial court to instruct the jury on attenuation, either initially or in response to the jury’s note.
  • Whether the trial court’s response to the jury’s note warranted habeas relief on due process grounds.. The state appellate decision neither contradicted nor unreasonably applied clearly established federal law, so the Second Circuit lacked authority to grant relief under §2254(d)(1).

Docket 25-748

Cited authorities

Read full opinionPDF