1. Did the state postconviction court violate Batson and its progeny by refusing to consider evidence that this Court's precedent expressly permits?

2. Did the state postconviction court err in denying Mr. Dickerson's Batson challenge when the jurors' voir dire responses and a comparative juror analysis either fail to support, or expressly rebut, the Solicitor's proffered "race neutral" reasons?

3. Did Mr. Dickerson's trial counsel provide ineffective assistance in failing to subject the Solicitor's proffered "race neutral" reasons to the methodologies for identifying pretext recognized by this Court's precedent in, e.g., Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (2005)?

Did the state postconviction court violate Batson-and-its-progeny