McCarthy v. Hernandez

1 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
KEVIN MCCARTHY, SUPERINTENDENT,
ELMIRA CORRECTIONAL FACILITY v.
PEDRO HERNANDEZ
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
No. 25–748. Decided June 22, 2026
PER CURIAM.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996 (AEDPA) imposes strict limits on federal courts’ power
to grant habeas relief to a prisoner convicted in state court.
District courts and courts of appeals have sometimes chafed
under these restraints, and when they have strayed too far
from the modest role that AEDPA prescribes, we have sum-
marily reversed their decisions. See, e.g., Klein v. Martin,
607 U. S. 213 (2026) (per curiam). We must do the same
today.
The Second Circuit ordered habeas relief in this case
based on its holding that a state-court decision was “con-
trary to” and “involved an unreasonable application” of Mis-
souri v. Seibert, 542 U. S. 600 (2004), because the decision
approved a trial judge’s refusal to tell a jury how to apply
Seibert—or, more precisely, how to apply what the Second
Circuit understood to be the holding in that case. 28
U. S. C. §2254(d)(1). But Seibert said nothing about jury
instructions. For this reason and others, the Second Circuit
exceeded the role that AEDPA prescribes.
I
A
This case concerns a tragic event that once captured the
Nation’s attention. On May 25, 1979, 6-year-old Etan Patz
left his family’s apartment in lower Manhattan to take a
bus to school. Before boarding the bus, he stopped to buy a

2 MCCARTHY v. HERNANDEZ
Per Curiam
drink at a bodega where respondent Pedro Hernandez, then
18 years old, was working. Patz never got on the bus and
was never seen alive again. Despite a vigorous search, law
enforcement could not locate him or find evidence of his
fate. For the next 20 years, authorities investigated several
suspects, but they were never prosecuted, and the case went
cold.
It was revived in 2012, when Hernandez’s brother-in-law
reported that Hernandez had made statements about his
involvement in Patz’s disappearance and suspected mur-
der. At that time, Hernandez was living in southern New
Jersey, and detectives took him to the Camden County
(New Jersey) Prosecutor’s Office (CCPO). They began ques-
tioning him there without first administering a Miranda
warning, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and
Hernandez, a man with a low IQ and a history of mental
illness, eventually confessed to strangling Patz and dump-
ing his body in an alley behind the bodega.
The detectives then read Hernandez his Miranda rights.
He waived them and made a second, videotaped confession.
While still at the CCPO, Hernandez also confessed to his
wife, Rosemary, and his daughter, Becky.
Detectives drove Hernandez to the New York County Dis-
trict Attorney’s Office, where he received another Miranda
warning, waived his rights, and gave a second videotaped
confession, this time to an assistant district attorney.
Hernandez continued for years to confess to Patz’s mur-
der. While in pretrial custody, for example, he confessed to
a psychiatrist. He also told this psychiatrist that he had
confessed to the crime in 1979 at a prayer meeting and in
the 1980s to his ex-wife. And he confessed the crime repeat-
edly to a second psychiatrist while awaiting trial.
B
New York charged Hernandez with intentional murder,
kidnapping, and felony murder. The first trial ended in a

3 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
Per Curiam
hung jury, and a second trial began in 2016. Hernandez
moved to suppress his statements to the detectives and the
assistant district attorney, but the trial court denied the
motion. It ruled that Hernandez was not in custody at the
CCPO before he received his Miranda warning and that he
had knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights
at the CCPO and the district attorney’s office before he
made his later videotaped confessions.
Under New York law, however, the trial court’s decision
not to suppress those confessions did not prevent the de-
fense from asking the jury to disregard them. New York
law requires a trial court to instruct a jury to disregard a
pretrial statement if the jury finds it to have been “involun-
tarily made.” N. Y. Crim. Proc. Law Ann. §710.70(3) (West
2026). And a statement is “involuntarily made” within the
meaning of this provision if it was obtained in violation of
the defendant’s state or federal constitutional rights,
§60.45(2)(b)(ii), or the right established in Miranda, see
People v. Graham, 55 N. Y. 2d 144, 149–150, 432 N. E. 2d
790, 793 (Ct. App. 1982). The trial court accordingly in-
structed the jury on voluntariness, custodial interrogation,
Miranda warnings, and Miranda waiver. App. to Pet. for
Cert. 73a–78a, n. 2 (App.).
But New York law does not require a trial court to in-
struct a jury on whether an initial involuntary confession
taints later confessions and thus imposes an obligation to
disregard them. See People v. Smith, 209 App. Div. 2d
1005, 1006, 619 N. Y. S. 2d 990, 991 (1994); People v. Ra-
bady, 28 App. Div. 3d 794, 795, 812 N. Y. S. 2d 884, 884–
885 (2006); People v. Martinez, 63 App. Div. 3d 859, 860,
880 N. Y. S. 2d 492, 493 (2009); People v. Medina, 146
App. Div. 2d 344, 350–351, 541 N. Y. S. 2d 355, 358–359
(1989). The trial court therefore did not instruct the jury to
decide whether Hernandez’s post-warning confessions were
sufficiently attenuated from his first, pre-warning confes-
sion. App. 192a (noting that the court did not instruct the

4 MCCARTHY v. HERNANDEZ
Per Curiam
jury “how to consider Hernandez’s post-Miranda confes-
sions depending on what the jury determined with respect
to the pre-Miranda confession” given at the CCPO).
Nonetheless, after the jury retired to decide on a verdict,
it sent the trial court a note seeking guidance on attenua-
tion:
“We the jury request that the Judge explain to us
whether if we find that the confession at CCPO before
the Miranda rights was not voluntary, we must disre-
gard the two later videotaped confessions at CCPO and
the DA’s office, the confessions to Rosemary and Becky
Hernandez, and the confessions to the various doctors.”
Id., at 281a.
The parties disagreed on the correct response. The State
argued that the answer should be “no,” while the defense
maintained that the correct answer was “yes.” The trial
judge agreed with the State and succinctly advised the jury
that the answer to its question was “no.” Id., at 307a.
In an exchange with counsel outside the presence of the
jury, the trial court explained that although New York law
requires a jury to disregard confessions that it finds were
“involuntarily made” in the sense noted above, state law
does not empower a jury to assess whether a later confes-
sion is fatally tainted by an earlier, “involuntary” confes-
sion. So the trial court did not think it proper to “instruc[t]”
the jury “on attenuation” when it was “not their function”
to consider that issue. Id., at 301a–302a.
The jury found Hernandez guilty of kidnapping and fel-
ony murder, and the trial court sentenced him to imprison-
ment for 25-years-to-life.
New York’s intermediate appellate court (the Appellate
Division, First Department) affirmed. People v. Hernandez,
181 App. Div. 3d 530, 122 N. Y. S. 3d 11 (2020). It agreed
with the trial court that Hernandez had not been in custody
before he received the first Miranda warning and that after

5 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
Per Curiam
receiving the warnings he had knowingly and voluntarily
waived his Miranda rights. The appellate court also ruled
that the trial judge had responded to the jury note in accord
with state law. Hernandez, 181 App. Div. 3d, at 532–533,
122 N. Y. S. 3d, at 14–15 (holding that the response was
“correct” and “meaningful . . . on the subject of the volun-
tariness of confessions”). And it concluded that the verdict
would have been the same even if the trial judge had in-
structed the jury on attenuation.
The New York Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal,
People v. Hernandez, 35 N. Y. 3d 1066, 152 N. E. 3d 1178
(2020) (Table), and we denied certiorari, Hernandez v. New
York, 592 U. S. 1319 (2021).
C
Hernandez filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus
in Federal District Court. He argued that the Appellate Di-
vision had violated clearly established federal law in reject-
ing his Miranda arguments and in its ruling on the trial
court’s response to the jury note. That response, Hernandez
maintained, itself violated clearly established federal law
by failing to explain to the jury the rule that Justice Ken-
nedy adopted in his opinion concurring in the judgment in
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U. S. 600.
Seibert addressed the constitutionality of an interroga-
tion tactic under which police question a suspect in custody
without providing a Miranda warning and then, after elic-
iting a confession, provide a Miranda warning and ask the
suspect to repeat the confession. The Court ruled that the
use of this tactic in that case violated federal law. Writing
for a four-Justice plurality, Justice Souter opined that the
use of the tactic had undermined the protection that Mi-
randa was designed to provide and that the confession
given after the tardy Miranda warning was therefore inad-
missible. Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment, ar-
guing that a post-warning confession obtained through a

6 MCCARTHY v. HERNANDEZ
Per Curiam
“deliberate” two-step strategy “predicated upon violating
Miranda” is inadmissible unless law enforcement takes
“specific, curative steps” to attenuate it from the pre-warn-
ing confession. 542 U. S., at 621.
The District Court referred Hernandez’s application to a
Magistrate Judge, who issued a 130-page report recom-
mending denial. The District Court adopted the report in
full and denied Hernandez’s habeas application. The Dis-
trict Court saw no ground under AEDPA for granting relief
based on Hernandez’s Miranda arguments. Yet the District
Court was troubled by the trial judge’s response to the jury
note. The District Court acknowledged that the response
was “technically correct.” App. 80a. It also acknowledged
that “[n]othing in Seibert discusses how trial courts should
respond to jury notes of any sort,” id., at 88a, because
Seibert concerned a judge’s resolution of a suppression mo-
tion, and “only a court can determine admissibility,” App.
92a. All the same, the District Court ruled that Seibert was
“relevant” to juries, not only to judges, and that Seibert “re-
quired” the trial court to “t[ell the jury] about attenuation”
in order to “protect [Hernandez’s] constitutional rights.”
App. 89a, 92a. Still, the District Court, like the Appellate
Division, concluded that the trial court’s failure to explain
attenuation to the jury was harmless.
The District Court granted a certificate of appealability
on the issue of the trial court’s response to the note, and a
panel of the Second Circuit reversed based on Seibert. Her-
nandez v. McIntosh, 146 F. 4th 142 (2025). The panel
stated that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Seibert set out a
binding rule of federal law and that the trial court needed
to explain the rule and its consequences in its response to
the jury’s note. Unlike the state courts, the Magistrate
Judge, and the District Court, the panel found the trial
court’s “no” answer to be “manifestly inaccurate.” 146
F. 4th, at 159. In the panel’s view, that error warranted
habeas relief under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1) because the

7 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
Per Curiam
response was contrary to and involved an unreasonable ap-
plication of Seibert. 146 F. 4th, at 159–160. That was so,
according to the panel, because the “rule laid out in Seibert
is relevant not only to a court making admissibility deter-
minations” under the Constitution but also to juries decid-
ing voluntariness under New York’s code of criminal proce-
dure. Id., at 158. The “thrust” of Seibert, the panel said, “is
the same” in either context. 146 F. 4th, at 158. And the
trial court’s misapplication of Seibert was “so erroneous,”
the panel reasoned, “as to deny Hernandez due process.”
146 F. 4th, at 157. The panel then ruled that no fair-
minded jurist could conclude that the error was harmless.
The panel stressed that its holding was based on the
premise that the trial court had “misstate[d] or misappli[ed]
. . . federal constitutional law in [the] jury instruction,” not
on the premise that the trial court had “misstated state
law.” Id., at 160, n. 9. Indeed, the panel acknowledged “[a]t
the outset” that AEDPA does not empower federal courts to
“ ‘reexamine state-court determinations on state-law ques-
tions.’” Id., at 157 (quoting Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S.
62, 67–68 (1991)).
The panel remanded with instructions to grant the appli-
cation and to order Hernandez’s release unless the State
gave him a new trial.
II
A
As relevant here, a federal court may grant habeas relief
on a claim that a state court has resolved on the merits only
if that decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasona-
ble application of, clearly established Federal law.”
§2254(d)(1). Only the holdings of this Court clearly estab-
lish federal law. White v. Woodall, 572 U. S. 415, 419
(2014). “[S]tate-court determinations on state-law ques-
tions” are “no part of a federal court’s habeas review of a
state conviction.” Estelle, 502 U. S., at 67–68. AEDPA

8 MCCARTHY v. HERNANDEZ
Per Curiam
instead allows a federal court to correct only “‘extreme mal-
functions’” in the resolution of federal issues by the crimi-
nal justice systems of the sovereign States. Harrington v.
Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 102 (2011). A decision is “contrary to”
our holdings if it applies a rule that “‘contradicts’” them.
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U. S. 156, 173 (2012). And a decision
“unreasonabl[y] appli[es]” our holdings when the state
court “blunder[s] so badly” that no fair-minded jurist could
agree with it. Mays v. Hines, 592 U. S. 385, 392 (2021)
(per curiam).
B
The Appellate Division’s decision neither contravened
nor unreasonably applied any holding of this Court.
First, Hernandez had no federal right to have the jury
evaluate the lawfulness of his confessions after the trial
court admitted them. Unlike New York law, the Federal
Constitution does not “require that both judge and jury pass
upon the admissibility” or voluntariness “of evidence when
constitutional grounds are asserted for excluding it.” Lego
v. Twomey, 404 U. S. 477, 490 (1972). So no federal law,
much less any clearly established federal law, required the
trial court to instruct the jury on the grounds for suppres-
sion set out in Miranda or Seibert.
Second, the rule embraced by Justice Kennedy in Seibert
does not disturb that proposition. Although we have never
held that Justice Kennedy’s opinion sets out the holding
that courts must follow under Marks v. United States, 430
U. S. 188 (1977), we may assume without deciding—in line
with the Second Circuit’s precedent, which the parties do
not contest—that it does. See United States v. Capers, 627
F. 3d 470, 476 (CA2 2010).
*
Even if Justice Kennedy’s
——————
*
Most Courts of Appeals agree with the Second Circuit on this score.
But the Sixth Circuit holds that the Seibert plurality, not Justice Ken-
nedy’s concurrence, supplies the controlling rule. United States v.

9 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
Per Curiam
opinion clearly established a rule of federal law cognizable
under §2254(d), that opinion established nothing about a
jury’s determination of a confession’s legality. Seibert con-
cerned a trial court’s ruling on a suppression motion, not a
jury’s assessment of attenuation. 542 U. S., at 604, 606
(opinion of Souter, J.). We have never applied Seibert in
any other procedural context. See Bobby v. Dixon, 565 U. S.
23, 26, 29–32 (2011) (per curiam). And neither the courts
below nor the parties have identified any decision of this
Court holding that Seibert affects a jury’s consideration of
a confession that a court has admitted.
Third, our case law does not support the Second Circuit’s
conclusion that the trial judge’s response to the jury’s note
violated Hernandez’s right to due process. See Estelle, 502
U. S., at 71–73; Cupp v. Naughten, 414 U. S. 141, 147
(1973). We have never held that the Due Process Clause,
or any other provision of the Federal Constitution, requires
a trial court to explain to a jury an issue that the jury is not
required to decide.
Hernandez correctly declines to argue that Seibert re-
quired the trial court to instruct the jury on attenuation in
its initial charge. App. 93a (“Hernandez does not argue that
Seibert compelled the trial court to instruct the jury on at-
tenuation in its initial charge”). As Hernandez concedes,
Seibert did not require the trial court to instruct the jury on
attenuation in its response to the jury note either. Brief in
Opposition 22. That conclusion does not change merely be-
cause the jury “focused on this question” or because the le-
gality of the confessions was “an issue central to the trial.”
Hernandez, 146 F. 4th, at 157, 162. Those contingent fea-
tures of Hernandez’s prosecution could not, as the panel
seemed to think, turn Seibert’s discussion of circumstances
in which a judge should suppress a confession into clearly
——————
Woolridge, 64 F. 4th 757, 762 (2023). We need take no side in that dis-
pute today.

10 MCCARTHY v. HERNANDEZ
Per Curiam
established federal law about an issue that juries must
“fully consider.” 146 F. 4th, at 161, n. 9.
Hernandez counters that it is New York law, not federal
law, that “vest[s] juries with th[e] responsibility” to assess
attenuation, and that Seibert “must control the jury’s con-
sideration” of the issue for that reason. Brief in Opposition
22. Yet the trial court ruled that New York law does not
vest juries with the responsibility to assess attenuation,
App. 301a–302a, the Appellate Division held that the trial
court’s response was “correct” under and otherwise compli-
ant with New York law, Hernandez, 181 App. Div. 3d, at
532–533, 122 N. Y. S. 3d, at 14–15, and a federal habeas
court may not second-guess state-court interpretations of
state law, Estelle, 502 U. S., at 67–68. In any event, Her-
nandez admits that a defendant “is not entitled to a free-
standing jury instruction on attenuation” under New York
law, Brief in Opposition 22, and neither he nor the Second
Circuit has explained how a federal court could nonetheless
grant habeas relief on the premise that due process turns
attenuation into a jury issue simply because the jury asks
about it.
The Second Circuit exceeded its authority in holding that
Hernandez is entitled to relief under §2254(d). The panel’s
opinion appears to reflect serious doubt about the reliability
of Hernandez’s confessions, but AEDPA does not allow a
federal habeas court to disturb a state-court conviction
based on such an evaluation of the evidence.
***
No clearly established federal law required the trial court
to instruct the jury about the rule that Justice Kennedy
adopted in Seibert. Because the panel erred in holding oth-
erwise, we grant the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari,
reverse the judgment of the Second Circuit, and remand the
case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

11 Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026)
Per Curiam
It is so ordered.
J
USTICE SOTOMAYOR, JUSTICE KAGAN, and JUSTICE
JACKSON would deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.