Did the Ninth Circuit's denial of relief rest on a misapprehension of what constitutes clearly established federal law under this Court's decision in Parker v. Matthews?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION ONE: Every federal judge reviewing Maureen McDermott’s prosecutorial misconduct claim (four judges, including the district court and each judge of a Ninth Circuit panel) has concluded that the misconduct in her case amounts to a prejudicial due process violation. Nonetheless, McDermott’s death sentence remains intact. Did the Ninth Circuit’s denial of relief rest on a misapprehension of what constitutes clearly established federal law under this Court’s decision in Parker v. Matthews, 567 U.S. 37 (2012), stating that the law regarding a prosecutor’s improper comments was “clearly established” by Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (1986)? QUESTION TWO: No state court conducted a comparative juror analysis when evaluating McDermott’s Batson! claim. Did the Ninth Circuit’s denial of this claim conflict with 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2) and this Court’s decisions, which require deference to the state court’s factual findings only when it considers relevant facts? 1 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). 1 LIST OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS United States Supreme Court Maureen McDermott v. California, Case No. 02-8810, petition for writ of certiorari denied May 5, 2003 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Maureen McDermott v. Deborah Johnson, Case No. 17-99005, judgment entered October 26, 2028, and rehearing denied April 8, 2024 United States District Court for the Central District of California Maureen McDermott v. Deborah Johnson, Case No. 2:04-cv-00457-DOC, judgment entered on August 15, 2017 California Supreme Court In re Maureen McDermott, Case No. 8092813, petition denied January 14, 2004 In re Maureen McDermott, Case No. $130708, petition denied January 3, 2007 In re Maureen McDermott, Case No. $155331, petition denied May 21, 2008 Los Angeles County Superior Court People of the State of California v. Maureen McDermott, Case No. A810541, judgment entered June 14, 1990 2