have applied. Virsnieks, 521 F.3d at 713. In fact, he does not show that the decision was incorrect, let alone “so incorrect that it lies outside of the range of reasonable conclusions.” Jones, 525 F.3d at 503. Therefore, Crockett has not satisfied his burden under AEDPA. See Rizzo, 528 F.3d at 505 (rejecting habeas petition and noting that Rizzo claimed constitutional violations “but stop[ped] short of stating which Supreme Court case injurious effect on the jury’s verdict because the juror’s affidavits showed that they accepted his trial testimony, which would very likely have resulted in an acquittal if they had received clarification on the meaning of “abet.” The district court disagreed with Crockett, finding the Illinois Appellate Court’s decision that 2d 439 (N.Y.App.Div.1984) (<HOLDING>). The court concluded that Crockett did not
holding jury verdict not inconsistent where jury unanimously determined that plaintiff failed to prove two elements necessary to recovery despite jurys failure to answer other questions on the special verdict form holding that it was error for the trial judge to answer a jurys question without giving defendants counsel an opportunity to be heard before the trial judge responded holding that it was reversible error for a trial court to fail to answer a jurys question on the burden of proof for two hours after which the jury returned a verdict holding that trial court did not commit reversible error when it submitted admissibility of evidence question to jury because the trial court had independently decided the question holding that it was not reversible error to fail to answer the jurys question where the trial judge was presiding over closing arguments in a codefendants case when the question was asked and the jury reached a result before the judge could confer with the parties