Does a federal court's unconditional deference to a state supreme court's purported findings on an essential element of a crime violate a habeas petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury?

QUESTION PRESENTED A federal court must review a habeas petition de novo if the state court’s adjudication on the merits was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). When conducting a de novo review, the federal court defers to the state court’s interpretation of state law. Petitioner Thanquarius Calhoun sought habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. An Eleventh Circuit panel denied his claim, finding that the Supreme Court of Georgia’s statement and application of Georgia law on intervening and proximate cause were automatically correct and beyond federal court review. Those issues, both elements of the crimes for which Calhoun was convicted, were never presented to or decided by a jury during the state-court proceedings. This Court has long recognized that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments entitle a criminal defendant to have a jury find him guilty of all the elements of the crime with which he is charged. E'rlinger v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1840, 1851-52 (2024); United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510 (1995). There is now a circuit split about whether a federal court conducting a habeas review may constitutionally defer to the state court’s findings when the state court, not a jury, has decided an indispensable element of a crime. The question thus presented is: Does a federal court’s unconditional deference to a state supreme court’s purported findings on an essential element of a crime violate a habeas petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury?