Do the normal rules of waiver apply in a situation like this to preclude a reconstruction hearing where the State has failed to offer any reasons for its strikes, either at trial or at any subsequent stage of state or federal appellate litigation?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW At a jury trial in an Oklahoma criminal case involving an African-American defendant, the State prosecutor attempted to use peremptory challenges to strike all African-Americans from the jury venire, but was stopped from doing so by the trial court, which did not require the prosecutor to provide race-neutral reasons for the strikes, nor did the prosecutor offer any such reasons. The Tenth Circuit found this was error under the first prong of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), but instead of granting habeas relief, the Tenth Circuit remanded to the district court for a “Batson reconstruction hearing” nine years after the trial, where the State had not made any attempt, at any time, to offer any reasons for the strikes, choosing instead to argue that no error occurred at all. The questions presented are: -|Do the normal rules of waiver apply in a situation like this to preclude a reconstruction hearing where the State has failed to offer any reasons for its strikes, either at trial or at any subsequent stage of state or federal appellate litigation? -2Are “Batson reconstruction hearings” authorized by the precedents of this Court at all, especially in a case like this one where the jury trial occurred almost a decade ago? i