Court Opinion

ID: 9485140
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 10:43:07.190244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:49.894315
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
Under the circumstances presented by this case, I join my colleagues in affirming the district court’s denial of Parker’s petition for habeas corpus. I write separately only to emphasize that the supplemental jury instruction issued in this case could have an unconstitutionally coercive effect in other contexts, even under the deferential standard of review imposed by AED-*1150PA. Federal habeas review of the Moore instruction in future cases, as in this one, will rest on evaluation of the instruction “in its context and under all the circumstances.” Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U.S. 231, 237, 108 S.Ct. 546, 98 L.Ed.2d 568 (1988) (quoting Jenkins v. United States, 380 U.S. 445, 446, 85 S.Ct. 1059, 13 L.Ed.2d 957 (1965) (per curium)) (internal quotation marks omitted).