Does Jennings v. Stephens permit raising procedural defenses on remand after a Batson challenge in a criminal jury selection case?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Ata 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” ten 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. Petitioner offered procedural defenses to a remand: 1) the State had waived its right to now present its reasons for the strikes so many years later; and 2) Batson and its progeny do not contemplate such a procedure. The district court found that such a “reconstruction hearing” at this point was impossible and unsatisfactory; and therefore granted habeas reliefto Petitioner. However, the Tenth Circuitreversed this ruling, finding an abuse of discretion, and addressing Petitioner’s procedural defenses in a summary fashion in a footnote, stating that its ruling was a showing of rejection of these defenses and that the mandate rule/law of the case precluded Petitioner from raising them on remand. The question is: Does this Court’s decision in Jennings y. Stephens, 574 U.S. 271 (2015), allow Petitioner to raise procedural defenses on remand? i