of peremptory strikes, the holdings of those Supreme Court opinions would be undermined. But we can engage in no comparative juror analysis here, because we do not know what happened during the entirety of the voir dire. Because we hold that, under the clearly established Supreme Court precedent of Batson, comparative juror analysis is an important tool that courts should utilize on appeal when assessing a defendant’s plausible Batson claim, we also must conclude that all defendants, including those who are indigent, have a right to have access to the tools which would enable them to develop their plausible Batson claims through comparative juror analysis. “[T]he State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior 94, 87 S.Ct. 362, 17 L.Ed.2d 290 (1966) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). We recognize that the Court has never
holding that a courts failure to provide a defendant with any portion of a habeas transcript was error holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that appellants waived any claim of error as to the portion of the lower courts ruling that they did not expressly challenge on appeal holding that the lack of evidence that the magistrate judge examined the trial transcript in its sufficiencyoftheevidence analysis left the court no alternative but to reverse the denial of habeas relief and remand for review of the transcript holding that failure to review the evidence presented to the magistrate and failure even to have a transcript filed with the district court  was reversible error