Was federal habeas relief improperly granted when, without basis in this Court's clearly established precedent, the federal court disregarded the determinative finding underlying the state court's decision in order to identify contrary federal law?

QUESTION PRESENTED The Kentucky Supreme Court rejected Respondent Ayers’ claim that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated by the failure to determine that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to counsel because, as an “experienced criminal trial attorney” who represented himself at trial, Ayers was never without counsel. On federal habeas review, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that Ayers was “an experienced criminal-defense attorney in Kentucky” and that “the Sixth Amendment’s’ waiver requirements apply only to uncounseled defendants.” Then, rather than deciding whether the Kentucky Supreme Court unreasonably decided that Ayers was not without counsel, the Sixth Circuit held that the Kentucky Supreme Court acted contrary to federal law by failing to apply “a rule that plainly applies to all uncounseled defendants.” The Sixth Circuit granted federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). This case presents the following question: Was federal habeas relief improperly granted when, without basis in this Court’s clearly established precedent, the federal court disregarded the determinative finding underlying the state court’s decision in order to identify contrary federal law? il