Whether the failure to give a self-defense jury instruction contradicts

QUESTION PRESENTED At trial for attempted murder and related counts, the heart of Petitioner’s defense was that he acted in self-defense: he testified that he intentionally shot the alleged victim who unexpectedly charged at him with a knife. But the trial court refused to give any self-defense instruction to the jury and prevented the jury from finding whether Petitioner was not guilty because he acted in self-defense. The state appellate court rejected Petitioner’s arguments that the trial court’s ruling deprived him of his jury trial and due process rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, and the federal district court denied Petitioner’s habeas petition. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit held—creating a split with two circuits—that a refusal to give a self-defense jury instruction cannot contradict, or be an unreasonable application of, this Court’s precedents regarding a defendant’s right to present a complete defense to a jury and to have a jury decide whether that defense is valid or the defendant is guilty. Despite the Second and Sixth Amendments, history and tradition, and this Court’s cases, the Sixth Circuit concluded that there is no constitutional right to present self-defense as a defense to a prosecution and to have a jury decide that issue. The question presented is: Whether the failure to give a self-defense jury instruction contradicts, or is an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law regarding a defendant’s due process and jury trial rights when self-defense was the crux of the defendant’s case and the defendant introduced evidence to support the defense?