Where the trial prosecutor's rationale for striking the lone black juror applied "just as well" to two white jurors, Foster v. Chatman, 136 S. Ct. 1737, 1754 (2016), and just as in Foster, the proof that the prosecutor's strike was "motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent" was discovered in collateral proceedings, did the Tennessee court's err in failing to apply Foster on collateral review?

Where the trial prosecutor's rationale for striking the lone black juror applied just as well to two white jurors, and the proof that the prosecutor's strike was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent was discovered in collateral proceedings, did the Tennessee court's err in failing to apply Foster on collateral review?