Does the Ninth Circuit's decision contravene Strickland and this Court's Sixth Amendment jurisprudence?

QUESTION PRESENTED This non-capital habeas case arises out of Steve Romero’s 2006 conviction in the state court of California for attempted murder and the Ninth Circuit’s 2019 unpublished order affirming the district court’s denial of habeas relief. Romero presented to the district court and the Ninth Circuit a claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge for cause a juror who made it clear on voir dire that he was explicitly biased against the defendant. After the juror was seated, the trial judge challenged Romero’s counsel on sidebar for allowing the juror on the panel. In response trial counsel stated he had a reason for failing to challenge the biased juror. The record does not reveal any basis for a tactical decision, and counsel no longer remembers. The Ninth Circuit held, under de novo review, that there was no deficient performance. The question presented is: Does the Ninth Circuit’s decision contravene Strickland and this Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence? i LIST OF