is led around by others? Is his conduct in response to external stimuli rational and appropriate, regardless of whether it is socially acceptable? Does he respond coherently, rationally, and on point to oral or written questions or do his responses wander from subject to subject? Can the person hide facts or lie effectively in his own or others’ interests? Putting aside any heinousness or gruesomeness surrounding the capital offense, did the commission of that offense require forethought, planning, and complex execution of purpose? Id. at 8-9. Although a jury determined the issue of mental retardation in this case, it is important to note at the outset that a jury determination of mental retardation is not required. See Schriro v. Smith, 546 U.S. 6, 7, 126 S.Ct. 7, 163 L.Ed.2d 6 (2005) (<HOLDING>); see also Briseno, 135 S.W.3d at 9 (holding
holding that the ninth circuit erred in requiring arizona courts to conduct a jury trial to resolve mentalretardation claim holding trial court erred in giving jury instruction requiring scienter in franchise fraud case holding that the ninth circuit erred because the state appellate courts conclusion that one incorrect statement in jury instructions did not render the instructions likely to mislead the jury was not unreasonable holding that the sixth circuit erred in finding that the state courts jury instructions were contrary to clearly established federal law holding that the ninth circuit erred by failing to defer to the bias reasonable interpretation of the ina