reverse the trial court’s decision where the record discloses no basis for a finding of substantial impairment.” Uttecht v. Brown, 551 U.S. 1, 20, 127 S.Ct. 2218, 167 L.Ed.2d 1014 (2007). However, the voir dire record here indicates conflicting answers and confusion on the part of Juror 22 in his ability to follow instructions regarding imposition of the death penalty. Given the discretion accorded a trial court in making its decision to exclude (and our deference to the Washington Supreme Court’s adjudication of this claim under AEDPA), and when considering the content of Juror 22’s answers, it was not an unreasonable application of the “substantial impairment” standard for the Washington Supreme Court to uphold the exclusion of Juror 22 based on the trial judge’s statements. See id. (<HOLDING>). 2. Reasonable Determination of Fact We also
holding that such a decision was within the trial courts discretion holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when the trial judge questioned the juror extensively enough to satisfy itself that the juror was not biased emphasis added holding that the trial court was within its discretion to exclude because the record showed considerable confusion on the part of the juror holding that the military judge has considerable discretion to exclude relevant evidence under military rule of evidence 403 holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony