questioning of prospective jurors to expose faults that would render a juror ineligible. No abuse of discretion is apparent, and, therefore, this proposition of law is overruled. State v. Dennis, 683 N.E.2d at 1105. The district court held that the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established United States Supreme Court case law. Dennis v. Mitchell, 68 F.Supp.2d at 890. As the Supreme Court observed in Morgan, “[t]he Constitution ... does not dictate a catechism for voir dire, but only that the defendant be afforded an impartial jury.” Morgan, 504 U.S. at 729, 112 S.Ct. 2222. At the same time, integral to the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury “is an adequate vo 476 U.S. 28, 106 S.Ct. 1683, 90 L.Ed.2d 27 (1986) (<HOLDING>). By contrast, the Supreme Court has ruled that
holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that racial discrimination is a personal injury tort holding that voir dire regarding racial bias was constitutionally required in case involving interracial violence holding that the employers routine use of racial slurs constitutes direct evidence that racial animus was a motivating factor in the contested disciplinary decisions holding as relevant in a murder case a history of domestic violence involving defendant and his victim