Did trial court unreasonably apply Supreme Court's precedent when it bypassed step 3 of the Batson v. Kentucky requirement's in its consideration of petitioner's claim of pattern of racial discrimination in jury selection process?

QUESTION PRESENTED DID TRIAL COURT UNREASONABLY APPLY SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENT WHEN IT BYPASSED STEP 3 OF THE BATSON v. KENTUCKY REQUIREMENT'S IN IT'S CONSIDERATION OF PETITIONER'S CLAIM OF PATTERN OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN JURY SELECTION PROCESS? CENTRAL TO THE PRESENT WRIT IS THE MANNER IN WHICH 66% OF ALL AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR'S IN THE JURY POOL OF THIS CASE, WERE TARGETED FOR EXCLUSION BY THE a . "PROSECUTION; AND THE FAILURE OF TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT THE STEP 3 ANALYSIS OF BATSON. . ‘MANDATE IN EVALUATION OF: PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS CLAIM OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE JURY SELECTION. . FINALLY, DID THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL'S, SECOND CIRCUIT ERRONEOUSLY REVERSE DISTRICT COURT'S GRANT OF HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF, THAT WAS BASED ON DETERMINATION THAT THE PROSECUTION'S USE OF IT'S PEREMPTORY STRIKE'S TO EXCLUDE FOUR AFRICAN-AMERICAN PROSPECTIVE JUROR'S DURING JURY SELECTION AMOUNTED TO INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION? Jason Johnson v. State of New York; DOCKET No.