Opinion ID: 76484
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consideration on Appeal

Text: 49 On direct appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court held that it had considered [the prosecutor's remarks] in the context of the entire sentencing proceeding and held that: 50 (t)o establish a Caldwell violation, a defendant necessarily must show that the remarks to the jury improperly described the role assigned to the jury by local law. [Cit.] Romano v. Oklahoma, [] 512 U.S. [1,] 9, 114 S.Ct. [2004,] 2010, 129 L.Ed.2d 1 [(1994)]. Viewed in context, the prosecutor's comments in this case do not contravene Caldwell, since the prosecutor's description of the jury's role was not an affirmative misstatement of the law and any confusion this isolated portion of argument may have engendered was alleviated by the repeated emphasis of the entire proceeding that the jury, and not the prosecutor or the court, was vested with the decision as to whether Carr should live or die. 51 ... 52 The jury's role as sole decision maker was reinforced throughout the entire sentencing phase proceeding. 53 ... 54 Any lingering confusion as to the jury's role would have been alleviated by Carr's closing argument and the trial court's charge. Carr made it clear that the jurors were the sole decision maker. The entire thrust of his argument was to impress on the jury its awesome responsibility in deciding punishment.... 55 Carr I, 480 S.E.2d at 593-94. 56 The district court found no decision contrary to or involving an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court and that the state court decisions were not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. R2-17 at 9. It concluded that Carr had pointed to no case and the Court has found no factually indistinguishable case from the United States Supreme Court that was applied incorrectly by the state courts in this case. Id. at 13-14. In its denial of a COA, the district court found that, following an exacting review of the state court's factual findings, the findings were presumed to be correct and [Carr] failed to prove otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. R2-23 at 2. The district court further found that the state court neither applied a rule of law that contradicted Supreme Court precedent or that resulted in a different opinion than that reached by the Supreme Court in materially indistinguishable facts nor based its decision on an unreasonable determination of the facts, established by the presented evidence. R2-23 at 2.