Was the Fifth Circuit's ruling that a court's comments during voir dire cannot give rise to a Caldwell violation erroneous and in tension with rulings of other courts of appeals that have applied Caldwell in similar circumstances?

QUESTION PRESENTED During jury selection, the court told eleven of the twelve seated jurors that their decision to impose death would be automatically reviewed on appeal to “make sure everything was done according to the law.” The court misled the jurors to “believe that the responsibility for determining the appropriateness of the defendant’s death rest[ed] elsewhere,” violating Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 (1985). On Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability (“COA”), the Fifth Circuit ruled that Petitioner could not overcome procedural default of a claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s comments. That ruling was based on the Fifth Circuit’s erroneous belief that the Caldwell claim was without merit and therefore that Petitioner could not establish cause for the default under Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1 (2012). The merits of the claim were thus critical to the ruling below. The questions presented are: 1. Was the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that a court’s comments during voir dire cannot give rise to a Caldwel/ violation erroneous and in tension with rulings of other courts of appeals that have applied Cal/dwe/? in similar circumstances? 2. Did the Fifth Circuit exceed the bounds of review of a COA application in its analysis of the merits of the Caldwell claim? ii STATEMENT OF