that a jury would necessarily infer that she fired the fatal shot. Moreover, as the district court held, “[t]he issue of which of the two persons who admittedly shot at Sgt. Motley ... actually fired the fatal shot is irrelevant as long as Sibley himself had the requisite intent to kill.” Consequently, Sibley has failed to satisfy the Schlup standard of actual innocence, and so is not entitled to consideration of the merits of his constitutional claims. III. Sibley also contends that his conviction should be vacated based on Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. at 584, 122 S.Ct. at 2428. In Ring, the Supreme Court held that a jury, and not a judge, must make all findings of fact, including aggravating factors, that render someone eligible for the death penalty. Id. at 609, 122 S.Ct. at 2443 (<HOLDING>). In Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1283
holding that if the imposition of the death penalty depends on the existence of aggravating factors a jury must find those factors beyond a reasonable doubt holding that sixth amendment requires that a jury not a judge find the existence of any aggravating circumstance and that they be found beyond a reasonable doubt holding that a sentencing judge sitting without a jury may not find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty holding that an aggravating circumstance in the georgia death penalty statute was unconstitutionally vague recognizing that even a nonunanimous recommendation of death by the jury proved that the jury including the jurors who voted against the recommendation of death had unanimously found the existence of a proffered aggravating circumstance even though the circumstance was not included within the definition of the particular capitalmurder offense charged in the indictment because the trial court had specifically instructed the jury that it could not proceed to a vote on whether to impose the death penalty unless it had already unanimously agreed that an aggravating circumstance existed