Did the Ninth Circuit err in concluding that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply federal law or unreasonably determine facts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in concluding that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply federal law or unreasonably determine facts in denying petitioner’s claim that the exclusion during the penalty phase of his videotaped confession during police interrogation hours after the homicide — as evidence in mitigation showing acceptance of responsibility and petitioner’s youthful humanity — was contrary to and an unreasonable application of Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986) and Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 (1979) (U.S. Const., 8th & 14th Amends.)? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err in concluding that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably apply federal law or unreasonably determine facts in denying petitioner’s claim that his plea of guilty to all charges after dismissal of the special circumstance allegation barred subsequent prosecution for capital murder as a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (U.S. Const., 5th & 14th Amends.)? ///