a race-neutral explanation for the strike. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96-97, 106 S.Ct. 1712; Cooperwood, 245 F.3d at 1046. The first and second elements of the test are met, because the prospective juror is African-American, and the prosecutor used a peremptory strike to remove the juror. Only the third element of the prima facie case is at issue, that is, whether the state court erred in failing to recognize an inference of racial motivation. Petitioner first argues that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was “contrary to” federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), because the court used an incorrect legal standard in determining whether he had made out a prima facie case. If he were correct, we would not defer to the state court. See Wade v. Terhune, 202 F.3d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). But we read the state court’s decision
holding that when the state court uses the wrong legal standard the rule of deference does not apply holding that the nocorroboration rule is a legal standard for a court reviewing a conviction holding that if a state case explicitly states that the state standard is more favorable to the defendant than the federal standard the federal claim is considered adjudicated below when the state standard is applied holding that the district court used the wrong legal standard when calculating restitution and remanding for further proceedings without discussing sufficiency of the evidence under the wrong standard holding that when presented with petitioners claim based upon state and federal law and the state court confined its analysis  to state law aedpa deference does not apply