Whether the Ninth Circuit clearly erred in upholding the state court's finding of premeditation under Jackson v. Virginia

QUESTION PRESENTED Under California law, premeditation requires more than just intent to kill; it requires “careful thought,” as a “deliberate judgment or plan,” carried on “coolly and steadily.” Here, Eddie Campbell stopped his SUV in the street outside the home of petitioner Michael Burciaga’s father; called out to three men standing on the property (Burciaga among them) that he was unarmed; handed a gun to passenger Adrian Torres; then approached and conversed with Burciaga. But when conversation became argument, Burciaga shot Campbell, and when one of the other two yelled, “Get [Torres],” Burciaga shot “at the vehicle,” hitting no one. Against Burciaga’s challenge under Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979), the state court sustained jury findings that the shootings were premeditated attempts to murder Campbell and Torres, citing evidence that those involved were all members of the same gang. On federal habeas review under AEDPA,! the Ninth Circuit agreed. Did the Ninth Circuit so clearly err as to call for summary reversal? 1 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.