Whether the state court's admission of an accomplice's inculpatory statement, accompanied by limiting instructions, violated the Confrontation Clause

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Court of Appeals violate the deferential review requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by setting aside a state murder conviction based on its de novo analysis of a confrontation claim, without fulfilling its obligation to consider the arguments supporting the state court’s denial of the claim or whether fairminded jurists could agree with the state court’s conclusions? 2. Did the Court of Appeals misapply the Supreme Court’s holdings in Bruton v. United States and Tennessee v. Street, and violate Teague v. Lane, by granting habeas relief based on a new rule of law, when it held that the constitutional guarantee of confrontation precludes the admission of inculpatory accomplice statements—even if not admitted for their truth and accompanied by limiting instructions—unless the defendant has testified and the State refrains from referencing the accomplice statements in any manner or expressly disavows the truth of the statements? 3. Did the Court of Appeals err in determining that the state court’s failure to follow its new confrontation rule constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, where the Supreme Court has never promulgated the new confrontation rule announced by the Second Circuit?