Whether de novo review instead of deferential review under AEDPA applies where a state supreme court's analysis was not conducted deliberately as a federal constitutional claim?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED When Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), it provided that deference to the decisions of state supreme courts would apply only when a state supreme court has decided a habeas petitioner’s federal constitutional claims “on the merits.” This limitation ensures that habeas petitioners are not forced to endure violations of their federal constitutional rights in state proceedings without deliberate review of their federal constitutional claims. Here, petitioner’s constitutional claims were not deliberately considered by the highest state court, but AEDPA deference was nevertheless applied. Accordingly, petitioner requests a writ of certiorari to determine 1. Whether de novo review instead of deferential review under AEDPA applies where a state supreme court’s analysis was not conducted deliberately as a federal constitutional claim? Even under AEDPA, federal courts may not permit federal constitutional violations in state court proceedings to go uncorrected when they are “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of’ the clearly established law of this Court. Petitioner therefore also requests a writ of certiorari to determine 2. Whether the court of appeals erred by holding that the joinder of two temporally, geographically, and evidentiarily distinct crimes is not contrary to the clearly established law of this Court as set forth in United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 446 n.8 (1986)? @