Was counsel's objection at the moment the pattern emerged sufficient to warrant a full Batson inquiry with respect to all strikes in the alleged pattern?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ‘ A. INTRODUCTION In this case, the presecutor used consecutive peremptory challenges to remove three African American jurors during the jury selection Process of petitioner's trial. After the dismissal of the third African American female ( Ms. Holley}, counsel ebjected pursuant to Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1956), : arguing that the prosecutor had engaged in a pattern of discriminatory strikes. Every court to address the Batson issue below, from the trial court, to the Michigan Court of Appeals, Federal District Court sitting on habeas review, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals all confined the Batson inguiry to Ms. Holley. In doing so, the courts accepted the prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for striking Ms. Holley --without even considering whether the explanation was credible in the face of the pattern of strikes. , The Questions Are: I. Was counsel's objection at the moment the pattern emerged sufficient to warrant @ full Batson inquiry withrespect to all strikes in the alleged pattern? IIT. When a court allows earlier peremptory challenges in a pattern of strikes to stand without taking remedial action; does it potentially endorse purposeful discrimination contrary to Batson? (I). t a se *