to evaluate whether the prosecutors’ justifications should have been accepted. As the record reflects, the state appellate court reasonably determined that the trial court had not observed Juror 016’s demeanor but nonetheless accepted this alternate reason for striking Juror 016 on the basis of the prosecutor’s credibility. Because the trial court did not observe Juror 016’s demeanor, the critical question here is whether the appellate court’s determination that the trial court properly credited the prosecutor’s representation was unreasonable. Notably, the basis for the state appellate court’s determination was its conclusion that there was “nothing in the present record” to indicate that the trial court did not conduct a searching inquiry in giving the prosecutor the bene .1998) (<HOLDING>). In addition, the trial court judge rejected
holding that questions of procedure are for the arbitrator not the courts holding that different justifications for an adverse action are not sufficient to defeat summary judgment when those reasons are not incompatible holding that affidavits are sufficient if they describe the justifications for nondisclosure with reasonably specific detail demonstrate that the information withheld logically falls within the claimed exemption and are not controverted by either contrary evidence in the record nor by evidence of agency bad faith holding that serious questions of pretext arise when the facts in the record are objectively contrary to the prosecutors proffered justifications holding the record did not contain enough facts to determine whether the statute was constitutional as applied to the particular facts and circumstances of the case