Did the Sixth Circuit panel misunderstand or frustrate the purpose behind this court's holding in Caldwell v. Mississippi

QUESTION PRESENTED “The uncorrected suggestion that the responsibility for any ultimate determination of death will rest with others presents an intolerable danger that the jury will in fact choose to minimize the importance of its role.” Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 333 (1985). Did the Sixth Circuit panel misunderstand or frustrate the purpose behind this court’s holding in Caldwell v. Mississippi of avoiding the imposition of the death penalty in an arbitrary manner when it held that Caldwell was not “so clearly established” such that the Kentucky Supreme Court unreasonably applied it to Petitioner’s claim where: 1. Under local law, each juror has the responsibility of deciding whether the defendant will be executed; 2. The prosecutor repeatedly and unequivocally suggested (and expressly stated) in voir dire and in closing argument, without correction, that the final responsibility for deciding the appropriate sentence would not rest with the jurors; 3. One of the jurors who voted to sentence Petitioner to death stated her uncorrected belief during voir dire that it was her responsibility to recommend but not fix the Petitioner’s sentence. i