1. Is a statement by the prosecutor that he believed he could discriminatorily remove African-American jurors from the panel as long as he left one African-American juror on the panel, a "race-neutral reason" as required by Batson v. Kentucky and the United States Constitution, particularly in this instance, when the prosecutor used a widely disparate number of his peremptory challenges to remove black jurors as opposed to white jurors and the prosecutor admitted he had "no other rational reason" than the race of the jurors for exercising his peremptory challenges?

2. Was the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals required to "look through" the unexplained state court decision to the "last related state-court decision that does provide a relevant rationale," or was it at liberty to supplant its own speculative reasons without deference to the state court?

Is a prosecutor's statement that he believed he could discriminatorily remove African-American jurors from the panel as long as he left one African-American juror on the panel a 'race-neutral reason' as required by Batson v. Kentucky and the United States Constitution?