RANDY WHITE, WARDEN, PETITIONER v. ROBERT KEITH WOODALL
Supreme Court of the United States, Scalia, Filed April 23, 2014,
Sentencing- State court’s failure to give no-adverse-inference instruction to jury in sentencing phase was not “beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement” and thus did not give rise to federal habeas corpus

Habeas Corpus filing in federal court from state conviction involves a standard that is “difficult to meet” and includes only decisions that are contrary to clear holdings (not dicta) of the USSC or involve an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Unreasonable application must be “objectively unreasonable,” not merely wrong; even “clear error” will not suffice.

“As a condition for obtaining habeas corpus from a federal court, a state prisoner must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement”

There are a lot of potentially misleading quotes related to the no-adverse-inference instruction in the federal habeas corpus context, so it’s probably safer not to include them…