Whether the rule of law espoused by Payne v. Tennessee, Lisenba v. People of State of California, and Estelle v. McGuire qualifies as 'clearly established federal law' under the Antiterrorism and Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the rule of law espoused by Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991), Lisenba v. People of State of California, 314 U.S. 219 (1941), and Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62 (1991), that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a basis for relief where evidence is introduced that is so unduly prejudicial that it renders the trial fundamentally unfair, qualifies as “clearly established federal law” under the Antiterrorism and Death Penalty Act of 1996 (““AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).