Whether the Ninth Circuit properly applied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) to a Batson claim when the California courts' decisions relied upon legal principles inconsistent with this Court's Batson jurisprudence

QUESTION PRESENTED After the prosecutor admitted misrepresenting her actual reasons for striking a prospective juror, the trial judge was “troubled by” some of the prosecutor’s reasons and found all of them implausible under an “objective standard” but denied a Batson objection because “I don’t even really get to apply the objective standard.” The state appellate court affirmed by considering only the evidence supporting the ruling and disregarding any contrary evidence instead of the “totality of the relevant facts,” failed to shift the burden to the State in light of the prosecutor’s admitted dissembling about strikes, refused to factor in the prosecutor’s disparately aggressive questioning of one African-American juror, dismissed the prosecutor’s disparate application of her purported criteria for striking jurors because no two were identical, and without considering the persuasiveness of the prosecutor’s justifications. The question is: Whether the Ninth Circuit properly applied 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) toa Batson claim when the California courts’ decisions relied upon legal principles inconsistent with this Court’s Batson jurisprudence.