QUESTION ONE:

Every federal judge reviewing Maureen McDermott's prosecutorial
misconduct claim (four judges, including the district court and each judge of a
Ninth Circuit panel) has concluded that the misconduct in her case amounts
to a prejudicial due process violation. Nonetheless, McDermott's death
sentence remains intact.

Did the Ninth Circuit's denial of relief rest on a misapprehension of
what constitutes clearly established federal law under this Court's decision in
Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (2012), stating that the law regarding a
prosecutor's improper comments was "clearly established" by Darden v.
Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)?

QUESTION TWO:

No state court conducted a comparative juror analysis when evaluating
McDermott's Batson claim. Did the Ninth Circuit's denial of this claim
conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) and this Court's decisions, which require
deference to the state court's factual findings only when it considers relevant
facts?

Did the Ninth Circuit's denial of relief rest on a misapprehension of what constitutes clearly established federal law under this Court's decision in Parker v. Matthews?