Does the Supreme Court's leeway and the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) deference for lower courts to determine due process violations yield arbitrary and conflicting decisions that reduce due process to mere judicial whimsy, making determinations freewheeling, unbound, and thus constitutionally unreliable?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 4 . Does the Supreme Court's leeway, 1 and the Antiterrorism Effective Death , : | Penalty Act ("AEDPA") deference, for :, lower courts to determine due process : : violations, yield arbitrary and confl. ; ; icting decisions that, in turn, reduce , : ) due process to mere judicial whimsy, making determinations . freewheeling, unbound, and thus constitutionally unreliable? And, if so, does this case present the opportunity ao to correct that with clearly established . : ; guidance, where the ailing reasonable . : ; provocation instruction itself so in; _ fected the entire trial that the result; ‘ ing conviction violated due process? ‘ : eS | LISTOF PARTIES © _» ° £X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. Te . : . [.] All parties do not appear in the caption ‘of the case on the cover page. A list of 7 : all