Pitchford v. Cain · ¶46

As I see things, Mr. Pitchford has failed to satisfy either of these standards. Start with § 2254(d)(1). The Court today seems to think the Mississippi Supreme Court “unreasonably” applied our clearly established precedents by concluding that Mr. Pitchford “waived” any step three argument. Ante, at 401. But in Ford v. Georgia, 498 U. S. 411 (1991), we said that States enjoy authority to fashion their own preservation rules governing Batson claims. 498 U. S., at 423. And taking us at our word, the Mississippi Supreme Court has adopted just such a rule: Any Batson argument not adequately presented in a trial court is “waived.” See Pitch- ford, 45 So. 3d, at 227, and n. 16 (collecting cases). Nothing about that rule defes our clearly established precedents.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.