Felony murder constitutional challenge to sentence was appropriately exhausted in state habeas, since despite the state habeas holding to the contrary, petitioner's filings on direct appeal discussed the relevant standard and sought relief.
State jury instructions on aiding and abetting didn't preclude the subsequent capital sentence, because although they didn't require the specific intent necessary under federal law, the separate finding of special circumstances established the necessary intent.
Petitioner had sufficient involvement in the crimes and evinced sufficient reckless disregard of the risk of death.
State court's determinations on ineffective assistance of counsel were not contrary to or an unreasonable application of the federal standard; defense counsel's limited investigation of mitigation evidence wasn't dispositive, as it related entirely to early childhood, and defense closing contained many mitigating inferences from the evidence; the latter are appropriately considered in a Strickland claim.