DOES THE FIRST PRONG IN DUREN V MISSOURI, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 5.Ct.664, 668, 58 L.E.cf.2c1 579 (1979), IF MET ESTABLISH A SYSTEMATIC EXCLUSION FOR COUNSEL TO OBJECT?

DOES ALL PRONGS IN DUREN HAVE TO BE MET BEFORE COUNSEL NEEDS TO OBJECT? AND IF SO HOW CAN A DEFENDANT MEET PRONG 2 AND 3 WITHOUT ESTABLISHING PRONG 1 BY OBJECTING? AND WHEN THE STATE COURT AGREES THAT PRONG ONE IN DUREN HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, SHOULDN'T PRONG 1 IN STRICKLAND BE ESTABLISHED?

IS THE DUREN V MISSOURI ANALYSIS BEING USED .BY TRIAL COURTS AS A GATEWAY FOR PROSECUTORS TO BYPASS THE BASTON V KENTUCKY ANALYSIS WHERE THIS COURT HELD THAT USING A PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE TO REMOVE A VENIRE PERSON BECAUSE OF RACE HAS BEEN DECLARED A VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

Does the first prong in Duren v Missouri establish a systematic exclusion for counsel to object?