Virginia Caudill stands convicted of capital murder. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky dismissed her Petition for Habeas Corpus and decided that no certificate of Appealability ("COA") would issue. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Caudill's request for a COA on two issues, but ultimately affirmed the decision of the District Court. In this Petition, Caudill seeks review of the two issues considered by the Sixth Circuit, and of the denial of a COA on a separate issue.

I. In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 93 (1986), this Court held that in deciding whether the State has purposely discriminated in selecting jurors, the trial court "must undertake a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct evidence of intent as may be available." The question presented is whether the state court ruled contrary to or unreasonably applied Batson where, after Petitioner challenged the striking of eight white male jurors, the trial court expressed disbelief that white males are a "protected class" and immediately denied the challenges without conducting any inquiry into the credibility of the prosecutor's reasons for the strikes.

II. Where a habeas petitioner shows that trial counsel met with critical mitigation witnesses for the first time on the day of their testimony, spent only minutes to prepare them to testify, and did not meet with or even speak to an expert witness whose testimony trial counsel decided not to offer, were counsel's decisions to limit the mitigation investigation supported by reasonable professional judgments as required under Strickland v. Washington?

III. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in denying Caudill a certificate of appealability on her claim that the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose the terms of a plea deal for an important witness.

whether-the-state-court-ruled-contrary-to-or-unreasonably-applied-batson