is an independent and adequate state ground that bars federal habeas relief, see Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30, 111 S.Ct. 2546, 115 L.Ed.2d 640 (1991), and notes that Taylor did not contest the adequacy of the state procedural bar in the district court. Alternatively, in the event that we reach the merits of the Batson claims, the State asserts that the trial court’s rulings upholding the strikes should be treated as adjudications on the merits that are entitled to deference under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Taylor maintains that Missouri’s rule requiring defendants to object after the prosecution gives its race-neutral reasons does not constitute a state ground adequate to preclude federal habeas review. See Lee v. Kemna, 534 U.S. 362, 366, 122 S.Ct. 877, 151 L.Ed.2d 820 (2002) (<HOLDING>). According to Taylor, a defendant should be
holding that missouri supreme court rules 2409 and 2410 as applied in lees case were not adequate to bar federal habeas review holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review holding state rule barring review of postconviction petitioners claims where petitioner failed to provide supporting documentation is adequate procedural ground on which to bar federal habeas review holding that substantive review is adequate holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases