Whether the Georgia Supreme Court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts

QUESTIONS PRESENTED A Georgia jury convicted and sentenced to death Warren King, a black man, for murdering a white woman during a robbery attempt when he was 18 years old. Abundant evidence demonstrates that the prosecutor discriminated against black and female jurors in selecting King’s jury. The prosecutor struck 87.5% of the black jurors in the pool, while striking only 8.8% of white jurors, all women. When the defense challenged his strikes, the prosecutor embarked on not one, but two rants, in which he “angr[ily]’ told the court that it was “4mproper for this Court to tell me that I cannot decide” who to strike, and that Batson was unnecessary because often “it was a physical impossibility if you wanted to strike every black off a jury.” Pet. App. 46-48a. On appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed without mentioning the prosecutor’s rants or his grossly disproportionate strike rate, and notwithstanding the prosecutor’s inconsistent, flimsy, and factually inaccurate rationales for many of his strikes. On habeas review, a divided Eleventh Circuit panel ultimately held that although the record was “troubling,” the state court had not acted unreasonably. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was based on “an unreasonable determination” of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). 2. Whether the Georgia Supreme Court “unreasonably applied.” Batson v. Kentucky, 476 US. 79 (1986). 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).