the case, we simply cannot conclude that Gravley’s conviction was attained through a fair and impartial judicial process as he was constitutionally guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the decision of the district court and order that Gravley’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted and that he either be released or given a new trial within 90 days of the issuance of this opinion. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 1 . The district court determined that Gravley's constitutional claim could be addressed without doing a "cause” and "prejudice” analysis because the last state court to hear the case had not dismissed the action on an independent state ground. See Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 263, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 1043, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The Tennessee Attorney General argues that
holding that district court correctly applied state law procedural bar to petitioners jury challenge despite state courts failure to indicate that its denial of petition rested on procedural grounds where petitioner never raised facially sufficient jury challenge before any state court and state courts denial of petition could not be construed as a decision on the merits holding that it would be inappropriate to predict whether state law would foreclose state postconviction review of the petitioners habeas claim where the state permitted second or successive state petitions when the procedural bar would result in fundamental injustice holding that a prisoners failure to pursue an appeal in state court is a procedural bar to federal habeas relief unless the petitioner shows both cause for failing to bring the state claim  and actual prejudice from the failure to consider his federal claims holding that a state procedural default will not bar consideration of a federal claim on habeas review unless the last state court rendering a judgment clearly and expressly stated that its judgment rested on a state procedural bar holding that if the state court addresses both the procedural default and the merits of a federal claim in the alternative a federal court should apply the state procedural bar and decline to reach the merits of the claim