Lockett, and Eddings, to Tennard’s claim. 5 . The Texas courts rejected Smith’s claim before the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tennard. Smith, 543 U.S. at 43. 6 . Because Clemons's claim is procedurally barred, this Court will not address the merits of the claim. This Court notes, however, that Clemons did not present the jury with evidence of his low IQ as mitigation. Accordingly, it is hard to imagine how the State or the circuit court prevented the jury from considering that evidence. 7 . This Court notes that Supreme Court of the United States did not create new law in Rom-pilla. Instead, it applied law established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to a new set of facts. See Newland v. Hall, 527 F.3d 1162, 1197 (11th Cir.2008)
recognizing that a state regulatory scheme that provides no new cause of action under state law and authorizes no new form of ultimate relief is not preempted holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative holding that new york law applies to this matter holding that rompilla is not new law holding that under new york law a manufacturer is not obligated to design a product that is impossible to abuse