Did the Second Circuit violate AEDPA by finding a state jury instruction invalid under Seibert when the Supreme Court has never held that Seibert's rule about pretrial suppression extends to jury deliberations?

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) prohibits federal courts from invalidating a state conviction unless there is both a legal error violating clearly established federal law from this Court and a determination of prejudice that defers to state -court findings of harmless error. In this case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit nullified a New York jury verdict convicting respondent Pedro Hernandez of the infamous 1979 kidnapping and murder of Etan Patz, based solely on the state trial judge’s purported failure to instruct the jury in accordance with Justice Kennedy’s cont rolling concurrence in Missouri v. Seibert , 542 U.S. 600 (2004). The questions presented are: 1. Did the Second Circuit violate AEDPA by finding a state jury instruction invalid under Seibert , when this Court has never held that Seibert ’s rule about pretrial suppression extends to jury deliberations ? 2. Did the Second Circuit violate AEDPA by finding that a single response by a state trial judge to a jury note necessarily infected the jury verdict , when the state courts found that there was more than sufficient evidence of the defendant’s guilt that was unaffected by the response ?