Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying a Certificate of Appealability on Moore's claim he was denied equal protection of the law, and a fair trial, where the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude two minority women from serving on Moore's jury—one because she had a brother who had been in trouble with the law and the other because she was 'gullible'—in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and where the trial court failed to perform the required three-step analysis under Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995)

QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in denying a Certificate of Appealability on Moore’s claim he was denied equal protection of the law, and a fair trial, where the prosecution used its peremptory challenges to exclude two minority women from serving on Moore’s jury—one because she had a brother who had been in trouble with the law and the other because she was “gullible’—in violation of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and where the trial court failed to perform the required three-step analysis under Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (1995). i