1. Whether a state trial court's granting of a prosecutor's challenge to a defendant's use of a peremptory strike, without following the three-step procedure for deciding such challenges required by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995); and/or without any reasonable finding that the striking party is motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent; gives rise to a cognizable claim on habeas corpus review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

2. If the answer to Question 1 is "Yes," whether the trial court below's granting of the prosecutor's challenge to Petitioner's use of peremptory strikes, and/or the appellate court's affirmance thereof:

A. was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, entitling Petitioner to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); and/or

B. was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding, entitling Petitioner to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).

Whether a state trial court's granting of a prosecutor's challenge to a defendant's use of a peremptory strike