McNeal

MEMORANDUM **

McNeal complains that his conviction for vehicular assault was unconstitutionally inconsistent with the response to a special verdict query on the vehicular homicide charge. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), we can grant a writ of habeas corpus only if the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). We review McNeal’s federal habeas petition de novo.

Instead of deciding whether the Washington court’s decision was contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law, the district court concluded that its decision was not contrary to such law. Although the latter conclusion may be correct, AED-PA requires the former. The district court’s legal conclusion was therefore not pertinent to the applicable standard.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that conflicting verdicts are not necessarily unconstitutional. See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 , 105 S.Ct. 471 , 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984); Harris v. Rivera, 454 U.S. 339 , 102 S.Ct. 460 , 70…