Whether the Ninth Circuit's decision violates AEDPA

QUESTION PRESENTED At his trial for molesting A.C. and C.C., defendant Jeff Rose sought to present evidence that a different jury acquitted him on charges relating to two other young girls, D.A. and Z.V. Rose also sought to attack A.C.’s credibility by presenting testimony from three more girls—C.R., K.T., and R.S.—who he claimed would say that he never acted inappropriately with them as A.C. alleged. The State responded that it would bolster A.C.’s credibility by presenting evidence that she saw Rose molest other girls, including Rose’s daughter, J.R. And if J.R. denied the accusation, the State said it would impeach her with her own prior inconsistent statements. Applying a rule of evidence that exists in virtually every jurisdiction in the nation, the trial court rejected both parties’ attempts to turn Rose’s trial into a circus by introducing evidence of uncharged acts and prior acquittals. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The federal district court denied habeas relief. On appeal, however, rather than applying AEDPA, the Ninth Circuit reversed in a decision that sounds of ordinary error correction, suggesting that the trial court could have issued a narrower ruling and merely concluding that the alleged error was not harmless. The question presented in this matter is: Whether the Ninth Circuit’s decision violates AEDPA, given that this Court reversed the Ninth Circuit under materially indistinguishable circumstances in Nevada v. Jackson, 569 U.S. 505, 509 (2018).