United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit


No. 21-1197

                         JAMES GARREY,

                     Petitioner, Appellant,

                               v.

      SHEILA CREATON KELLY, Superintendent of MCI-Concord,

                     Respondent, Appellee.


          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

        [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]


                             Before

                  Lipez, Howard, and Kayatta,
                        Circuit Judges.


     David J. Nathanson, with whom Wood & Nathanson, LLP was on
brief, for appellant.

     Eva M. Badway, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Bureau,
with whom Maura Healey, Attorney General, was on brief, for
appellee.


                       December 12, 2025
          HOWARD, Circuit Judge.            A person may not be excluded

from a jury because of that person's race, and a prosecutor in a

criminal case may not on that basis exercise a peremptory challenge

to prevent a venireperson from serving on the jury.          Whether such

an improper challenge was erroneously allowed in a Massachusetts

murder prosecution is the question that lies at the heart of this

appeal.   Our task is further complicated by the question of what

to make of a less-than-clear state trial record, our review of

which is subject to limitations imposed by Congress.

          In 1999, a Massachusetts jury found James Garrey guilty

of first-degree murder, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Following his unsuccessful appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme

Judicial Court (SJC), Garrey petitioned the United States District

Court for the District of Massachusetts for relief pursuant to 

.   In this appeal from the district court's denial of

his habeas corpus petition, Garrey maintains that, in allowing the

prosecution's peremptory strike of a minority-race juror, the

state trial court committed error under Batson v. Kentucky, 

 (1986), and Powers v. Ohio, 

 (1991).            Garrey

further asserts that the SJC both unreasonably determined facts

and unreasonably applied federal law in affirming his conviction.

Concluding   that   neither   the    SJC's    factual   findings   nor   its

application of the law was unreasonable, we affirm.



                                    - 2 -
                          I.    BACKGROUND

          We   briefly   set   out    the    relevant       facts     underpinning

Garrey's conviction and focus our recitation on the procedural

history relevant to Garrey's Batson/Powers challenge.                      In doing

so, where appropriate we draw upon the facts recited by the SJC,

supplemented by other consistent record facts.                      Companionio v.

O'Brien, 

 (1st Cir. 2012).

                         A. Facts of Offense

          In   March   1997,   Garrey       went   to   a     bar    in    Franklin,

Massachusetts.   Commonwealth v. Garrey, 

 (2002).

Two of his coworkers, Corey Skog and Doreen D'Amelio (who were

dating), were also at the bar.       

.         Earlier that month,

Garrey had found out that Skog had been having sexual relations

with Garrey's former girlfriend.        

.         At the bar, Garrey

told D'Amelio that he "would kill to have a girl like you" and

asked "would you mind if I hit [Skog]?"            

.            Later that

night, when Skog tried to leave the bar with D'Amelio, Garrey

blocked the way and started punching Skog.              

    Skog fell to the

ground and Garrey continued to punch him until one of Skog's

friends pulled Garrey off.      

     Garrey then pulled out a knife

and stabbed Skog.   See 

.         Skog again fell to the ground,

this time bleeding profusely, and Garrey kicked Skog's head three

times.   

   After being forced out of the bar, Garrey tried to

flee but was tackled by another of Skog's friends, who took the

                                 - 3 -
knife and threw it away.      

    Skog ultimately died from the

injuries, and Garrey was arrested.     

                   B. Jury Selection and Trial

         During jury selection in Garrey's trial, the prosecution

sought to use a peremptory strike on a minority-race prospective

juror ("Juror 6-7").     Garrey, who is white, requested that the

trial court inquire into the juror's dismissal.       The relevant

exchange, repeated here in full, took place primarily among the

trial judge, the prosecutor (Ms. Corcoran), and Garrey's counsel

(Mr. Carney).

         Clerk:   Following juror please step down.
         You're being excused. Panel 6, Juror No. 7 in
         Seat No. 14,[juror]. Panel 6 --
         Mr. Carney:   Your Honor, may I be heard?
         The Court:    Course you can.
         Mr. Carney:   Before she leaves.
         The Court:   Just one -- Mr. Officer.   Mr.
         Officer, please.  Could you bring the juror
         back in, please.
         BENCH CONFERENCE
         The Court:    Yes, you may, Counsel.
         Mr. Carney: Your Honor, I would ask the Court
         to inquire further.       She is the only
         African-American juror that I see.    What is
         her number again?
         Ms. Corcoran:    Six-seven, your Honor.
         The Court: I got to tell you that I didn't
         even catch that she was an African-American.
         Mr. Carney: Well, I did, your Honor, and I
         believe she may be the only one in the entire

                               - 4 -
pool, and so I would ask that the Court inquire
further as to the basis for the challenge.
The Court:   Let me ask this question.   The
deceased nor the plaintiff are black people,
is that --
Ms. Corcoran:   Correct.
The Court: Are there any people of any color
or ethnic diversity going to be testifying in
this case?
Ms. Corcoran: I can't speak for the defense,
your Honor.      I don't know.       For the
Commonwealth, no. That had nothing to do with
me --
The Court: Could you tell us what the reason
is for the challenge.
Ms. Corcoran: If you're inquiring, yes, your
Honor. Her husband is a guidance counselor at
a public school. That was my reason. It has
nothing to do with her race.
The Court:   Counsel, please.
Mr. Carney: I respectfully submit that's an
insufficient reason to challenge the only
minority juror in the entire venire.     We've
had other people who are public employees, and
I respectfully submit that's not a good enough
reason to challenge, and I would ask that the
challenge be disregarded.
The Court: Okay. As I understand it, Counsel,
that the reason for your challenge, the reason
for your challenge and the preliminary
findings of the Court, is that the fact that
the person's a guidance counselor, could you
be a little more explicit in that.
Ms. Corcoran:   Why, why I would not want a
guidance counselor?
The Court:   Yeah.
Ms. Corcoran:   Because --

                     - 5 -
The Court: I'm not convinced this lady is a
minority. I am not convinced of that.
Ms. Corcoran: I don't know if she is either,
your Honor. I don't know what she is. I will
tell you that that was not the reason that I
challenged this woman.
The Court:   Okay.
Ms. Corcoran: That was not the reason.     That
had nothing to do with it.
The Court:   But the fact her husband is a
guidance counselor?
Ms. Corcoran: Actually, her -- I'm looking at
her occupation. It was her occupation. I'm
sorry. I meant to say her occupation.
The Court:   Okay.   She's a guidance counselor.
Ms. Corcoran:   Yes.
The Court:   I'm sorry.
Ms. Corcoran: No, that was my mistake. I had
said that initially. That was the reason, and
I believe I have the right to challenge her.
These aren't challenges for cause at this
point.
The Court:   That's true.
Ms. Corcoran:    It's nothing to do with her
race.
The Court: Counsel, do you wish to be heard
further on that issue?
Mr. Carney: Yes, your Honor. The fact that
a person serves as a guidance counselor has
absolutely no impact on their ability to serve
as a juror.
The Court: Oh, I can tell you that people's
occupation,   whether   they're   --   whether
they're -- whether they're people who try and
rehabilitate everybody and feel sorry for them
and all that business can certainly be a

                       - 6 -
legitimate  challenge on   behalf   of  the
Commonwealth or the defendant.    You don't
think?
Mr. Carney:   Not in this case, your Honor.
Ms. Corcoran: I fully agree with your Honor,
and that was the sole reason that I challenged
this person.
The Court: Is there anything else you'd like
to say for purpose of the record?
Mr. Carney: Yes. Your Honor, I do believe
that this juror is a minority juror, and I do
not see another minority juror in the venire.
Ms. Corcoran: I do. I do. I just looked as
I was looking around. I see an Asian man that
is seated on the jury.    I see another man.
I'm not sure if he's -- she's not the only
one, your Honor.
The Court:  Counsel, the question is do you
want me to ask her whether she's a minority
person?
Mr. Carney: If that would make a difference
in your Honor's judgment, certainly.
The Court:     Oh,   I   think   that   that's   so
difficult.
Mr. Carney: Well, then I think that the fact
that one can see she is so dark hued in skin
color and in her hair that it is obvious to me
that she is African-American.    Well, then I
would ask that she be brought over and asked.
It's the only way to settle it.
The Court: What does the Commonwealth ask the
Court to do?
Ms. Corcoran: Your Honor, I would leave it to
your discretion.      I do not think it's
necessary for this woman to come over, because
that is not an issue that I had.      I solely
challenged her for that reason that I told the


                     - 7 -
Court, the    fact   that   she   is   a   guidance
counselor.
The Court: Yes, as I -- as I sort of commented
on it myself.
Ms. Corcoran:      Because of the liberal
attitude, and that's -- I mean, obviously, I
am entitled to have perceptions when I'm
choosing a juror, as defense does, and his
argument is nullified by the fact that
I -- there is an Asian man that I did not -- I
don't know what defense is trying to assume at
this point, that I'm taking all the minorities
off the jury. There's an Asian man sitting in
there. I'm cognizant of the fact that I'm in
Norfolk County --
The Court:   Is there anything further you'd
like to ask the Court to do, sir?
Mr. Carney:   No, your Honor.     Thank you.
The Court: Do you ask the Court to inquire of
this lady as to whether she's a minority?
Mr. Carney:   Yes, your Honor.
The Court:    For what reason, please?
Mr. Carney:     Because the Court          is   not
convinced that she is a minority.
The Court:   That's correct.   But really, if
she is, assuming she's a minority, why
wouldn't counsel for the Commonwealth have
been stating a good and sufficient reason?
Mr. Carney: I submit the reason is not a good
and sufficient reason to strike the only
African-American man or woman off this jury.
The Court: Can I tell you, folks, for purposes
of the record, the question is do we have to
bring her over here. That's the question.
. . .
The Court: Hi, [Juror 6-7]. Could you come
a little closer to me, please.  My name is

                      - 8 -
Judge Tom Connolly, and your questionnaire
indicates you're a guidance counselor for the
Boston public schools.
The Juror:    Yes.
The Court:     Right     there   in   downtown   at
Government Center.
The Juror:    No, it is Jamaica Plain.
The Court:    Oh.
The Juror:      English High School in Jamaica
Plain.
The Court:    Oh, in Jamaica Plain, okay.
The Juror:    Yeah.
The Court: [Juror 6-7], the only reason I ask
this question is because of a ruling of the
Supreme   Judicial  Court   that   encourages
minorities to serve on juries, okay, and the
question is whether or not you are a minority
person, ethnically.    It's a pretty stupid
question to ask, I know that, but I just got
to -- I got to ask for you.
The Juror:    Yes.
The Court:    Are you?
The Juror:    Yes.
The Court: Okay. Can you step back with the
officer, please.     That was not the best
phrased question, but I think it's the best I
could do under the circumstances.
Mr. Carney:   I agree.    It was a perfectly
appropriate question and asked with great
sensitivity, the record should reflect.
Ms. Corcoran:    I agree.
Mr. Carney:   I'm serious.
Ms. Corcoran:    I agree.



                       - 9 -
          The Court:     Okay.    So, basically, as I
          understand this, counsel for the defendant
          is -- is asking for me to inquire of what the
          reasons were why this woman was struck and the
          answer given, that she was a guidance
          counselor at the Boston public schools.
          Counsel, is there anything further you'd like
          to say?
          Mr. Carney:   No, your Honor. Thank you.
          The Court:    And I also want the record to
          maintain   that   there  is   absolutely   no
          minorities   as   either  the  victims,   the
          witnesses or the defendant in this case. I'm
          going to -- I'm going to allow the challenge
          on that finding. I may very well make written
          findings on that issue before we finish this
          case.
          Ms. Corcoran: Let me just -- excuse me, your
          Honor. As you were saying, then, the medical
          examiner, Manuel Montez, I believe is --
          The Court:    Hispanic.
          Ms. Corcoran:   Hispanic.
          The Court: Right. But under our case law the
          people who are of Mexican or Spanish descent
          are not rated as a minority.
          Ms. Corcoran: Right. And I just wanted to
          make that clear for the record.
          The Court:    Thank you very much.
In April 1999, the empaneled jury found Garrey guilty of murder in

the first degree.

                        C. Procedural History

          Garrey appealed to the SJC pursuant to Massachusetts

General Laws chapter 278, section 33E, identifying a variety of

errors made by the trial court, including the removal of Juror

                               - 10 -
6-7.   Garrey made two arguments as to why the trial court erred in

allowing      the    prosecutor's         peremptory       challenge     of   a    minority

juror.

              First, he contended that the trial judge contravened

Batson     by      stating       that   guidance      counselors        might      wish   to

"rehabilitate everybody and feel sorry for them."                          Garrey argued

that this comment ran afoul of Batson, which requires the trial

judge to prompt the challenger to provide a neutral explanation

for a peremptory strike, because the trial judge provided his own

reasoning for the strike.

              Second,         Garrey    argued      that    the     explanation         first

advanced      by    the       prosecutor -- that      Juror       6-7   was   a    guidance

counselor and thus likely had a "liberal attitude" -- was "per se"

inadequate to deny a Black juror the right to sit on a jury.                              He

stressed that because the "record contained no legal or factual

support for any such 'occupational attitudes,' it was error [for

the judge] to accept the explanation."                       Garrey also included a

footnote that stated:             "Although the judge assumed that the case's

lack     of     racial        overtones    was    significant, . . .              'race   is

irrelevant         to     a     defendant's      standing      to       object     to     the

discriminatory use of peremptory challenges.'"                          (Quoting Powers,

).              He made no further argument under Powers, nor

any further argument that the trial judge had "allow[ed] the

challenge" because no witnesses or parties were Black.

                                           - 11 -
          In 2002, the SJC denied Garrey's appeal and affirmed his

conviction.   Garrey, 

.       In rejecting Garrey's

challenge to the dismissal of Juror 6-7, the SJC addressed his

argument that "the judge 'erred by supplying the missing detail'

when he elaborated on the Commonwealth's reasoning for removing a

guidance counsellor from the jury."    

.   The SJC concluded

that "[a]lthough it is inappropriate for a judge independently to

suggest his or her own reason why a juror should not serve, the

judge did not do so here."   

 (citation omitted).        Instead, the

trial judge "engaged both the prosecutor and defense counsel in a

full discussion on the issue and provided defense counsel with the

opportunity to argue whether the juror's occupation as a guidance

counsellor was an adequate basis to challenge her."         

          As to Garrey's second argument, the SJC determined that

the prosecutor's challenge to Juror 6-7 "because she was a guidance

counsellor was not per se inadequate."    

.   It recognized

that "[i]n some circumstances, a juror's occupation alone may be

facially insufficient to rebut a prima facie showing that a

peremptory challenge was improperly exercised."       

    But "[t]he

converse is also true," the SJC explained.       

 (citing United

States v. Maxwell, 

 (6th Cir. 1998) (concluding

that juror's status as a guidance counselor is a "permissible

reason[] for [a] strike" at step two of Batson)).



                              - 12 -
            In a footnote, the SJC also commented that "[t]he fact

that the defendant, the victim, and the witnesses were Caucasian

was not dispositive of the [Juror 6-7 removal] issue, because the

defendant is entitled to a jury selected by nondiscriminatory

criteria,      and        prospective       jurors        are     entitled        to      a

discrimination-free jury selection process."                    

 at 429 n.2.

            Garrey petitioned for rehearing before the SJC in 2002.

His petition was denied.

            In 2003, Garrey filed a petition for a writ of habeas

corpus in federal district court pursuant to 

.                           In

his habeas petition, he argued that "the record was bare of any

support for a belief in the occupational attitudes of guidance

counselors."         He also argued that "the trial judge erred by

suggesting    the     missing     detail    himself[,]          which    defeated       the

judge's     ability       to   make    an   independent         evaluation    of        the

prosecutor['s] pretextual challenge."                Garrey explained that the

SJC's     factual     findings        regarding      this       latter    point        were

"contradicted . . . by the record," and as a result, "the state is

not     entitled     to    any    presumption        of     correctness      in        such

factfinding."

            After Garrey filed his habeas petition, he returned to

state court in 2004 to move for a new trial.                    His motion for a new

trial was rejected by the trial court, and Garrey did not seek

leave to appeal to the SJC.             Garrey filed another motion for new

                                        - 13 -
trial in 2012 that was denied in 2014.      His appeal to the SJC was

also denied.    He then filed a petition for writ of certiorari and

a motion for rehearing in the United States Supreme Court, both of

which were denied in 2015.

          Garrey's habeas case got off the ground in earnest in

the district court in 2015.   The case was assigned to a magistrate

judge, who issued an order that Garrey should submit a memorandum

to the court "setting out all of the grounds for relief he wishes

to press along with the facts and the law to support each claim."

In his memorandum responding to that order, Garrey argued that

there was Powers error by the SJC and the trial court in addition

to Batson error.

          In due course, the magistrate judge entered a report and

recommendation (R&R) concluding that there had been no Batson error

but that the SJC had unreasonably applied Powers.       As a result,

the judge ordered further briefing to consider whether the Powers

error prompted a harmless error or a structural error analysis.

Subsequently,    the   magistrate   judge     entered   another   R&R

recommending denial of Garrey's § 2254 petition, reasoning that

Powers error is nonstructural under First Circuit precedent and

concluding that here, the error was harmless. See Garrey v. Silva,

No. 03-10562, 

, at *8-10 (D. Mass. Oct. 5, 2020)

(discussing Chakouian v. Moran, 

 (1st Cir. 1992), and

United States v. Casey, 

 (1st Cir. 2016)).

                               - 14 -
                The   district       court    adopted       the   magistrate    judge's

recommendations in part and dismissed Garrey's § 2554 petition.

Garrey v. Kelley, 

, 129 (D. Mass. 2021).                          The

district court first concluded that the SJC did not unreasonably

apply Powers. 

 Specifically, the court reasoned that the SJC's

view       of   the   record   was     that   (1)     the   trial   judge   found    the

prosecutor's strike of Juror 6-7 appropriate because of the juror's

occupation and (2) the trial judge did not make his ruling based

on racial identities of the juror and the defendant.                           

   The

district court characterized these findings as "not unreasonable"

and also found that this was not an unreasonable application of

Powers.         

   The district court further ruled that the SJC did

not unreasonably apply Batson.                  

     Thus, the district court

dismissed Garrey's petition.              

   Garrey timely appealed.1


                                 II.     DISCUSSION

                On appeal, Garrey reprises his argument that the SJC

unreasonably applied clearly established precedent, Powers and

Batson, and unreasonably determined facts in affirming the state


       1The district court granted a certificate of appealability
(COA) as to the claim of a Powers violation because "the
disagreement   between   judicial    officers  demonstrates   that
reasonable jurists can disagree as to whether a Powers error was
committed," but denied a COA as to a Batson error.       Garrey v.
Kelly, 

, 29 (D. Mass. 2021). We granted Garrey's
request for an expanded COA, certifying his claims pursuant to
both Batson and Powers.


                                         - 15 -
trial     court's   approval   of   the      prosecutor's   strike   of   the

minority-race juror.     He thus urges us to reverse and remand with

instructions to issue a writ of habeas corpus.          Where the district

court did not engage in independent factfinding, as was the case

here, we review the court's denial of a habeas petition de novo.

Rivera v. Thompson, 

 (1st Cir. 2018).             We can also

affirm a district court's decision on any ground apparent from the

record.    Gaskins v. Duval, 

, 451 (1st Cir. 2011).

                      A. Habeas Standard of Review

            The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of

1996 (AEDPA), 

 Stat. 1214 (codified as

amended at 

), governs a federal court's power to

grant habeas relief.     Shoop v. Twyford, 

 (2022).

Under AEDPA, habeas relief may only be granted if the state court

decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application

of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme

Court of the United States; or . . . resulted in a decision that

was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light

of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding."                  

(d); see Gaskins, 640 F.3d at 451.             For purposes of

AEDPA, "'clearly established Federal law' . . . refers to the

holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court's

decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision."

Williams v. Taylor, 

 (2000).

                                    - 16 -
           Both "contrary to" and "unreasonable application of"

have been given specific meanings.          "[A] state-court decision is

contrary to clearly established federal law if the state court

employs a rule that contradicts an existing Supreme Court precedent

or   if   it   reaches   a   different     result    on    facts   materially

indistinguishable from those of the controlling Supreme Court

precedent." Janosky v. St. Amand, 

 (1st Cir. 2010).

A court unreasonably applies clearly established law when it

"identifies    the   correct   governing    legal    principle     from   [the

Supreme] Court's decisions but unreasonably applies that principle

to the facts of the prisoner's case."            Porter v. Coyne-Fague, 

 (1st Cir. 2022) (alteration in original) (quoting

Williams, 

).     Reasonableness in this context is not

a question of "whether a federal court believes the state court's

determination was incorrect."        Shoop, 

.        In fact,

"even clear error will not suffice" for a grant of habeas relief.

Porter, 

 (quoting White v. Woodall, 

 (2014)).      Rather, it must be "so obvious that a clearly

established rule applies to a given set of facts that there could

be no 'fairminded disagreement' on the question."              

 (quoting

White, 

).

           As to a claim that a state court's ruling was "based on

an   unreasonable    determination   of    the   facts,"    § 2254(d)(2),    a

"state court's findings on factual issues 'shall be presumed to be

                                 - 17 -
correct' and the petitioner bears the burden of disproving factual

findings by 'clear and convincing evidence,'" McCambridge v. Hall,

    (1st     Cir.    2002)    (quoting     

(e)(1)).      This standard applies to factual findings by both

trial and appellate state courts.              Clements v. Clarke, 

 (1st Cir. 2010).

                          B. Batson/Powers Challenge

             With   the   deferential    standard      of   review   for    habeas

petitions in mind, we take up the SJC's treatment of Garrey's

Batson and Powers claims.            We first sketch the contours of the

relevant guiding law.

             "Equal justice under law requires a criminal trial free

of racial discrimination in the jury selection process."                   Flowers

v. Mississippi, 

 (2019).               The Supreme Court in

Batson operationalized this principle, explaining that "peremptory

challenges may not be exercised on the basis of race."               Sanchez v.

Roden, 

 (1st Cir. 2014).               Batson also laid out

the appropriate framework for analyzing potentially race-based

challenges.    "First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing

of discrimination in the prosecutor's launching of the strike."

United States v. Bergodere, 

 (1st Cir. 1994)

(citing Batson, 

).               Then, at step two, "the

prosecutor must proffer a race-neutral explanation for having

challenged the juror."         

    At this step, the prosecutor needs

                                      - 18 -
only to provide a reason that is, on its face, not explicitly

racial.    See Purkett v. Elem, 

, 768–69 (1995) (per

curiam).    The prosecutor "must articulate a neutral explanation

related to the particular case to be tried."        Batson, 

.   It does not matter if the explanation is "implausible or

fantastic."    Purkett, 

.

            At step three, a court must examine "the prosecutor's

race-neutral explanations in light of all of the relevant facts

and circumstances," Flowers, 

, and "decide whether

the defendant has carried the ultimate burden of proving that the

strike    constituted   purposeful   discrimination   on   the   basis   of

race," Bergodere, 

.         Step three therefore involves

a "determin[ation of] whether the prosecutor's proffered reasons

are the actual reasons, or whether the proffered reasons are

pretextual and the prosecutor instead exercised peremptory strikes

on the basis of race."      Flowers, 

.      "The ultimate

inquiry is whether the State was 'motivated in substantial part by

discriminatory intent.'"     

 (quoting Foster v. Chatman, 

 (2016)).       However, "the ultimate burden of persuasion

regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the

opponent of the strike."     Purkett, 

.

            Batson was motivated not only by a desire to protect the

interests of defendants, but also by the need to "protect the

rights of defendants and jurors, and to enhance public confidence

                                 - 19 -
in the fairness of the criminal justice system."                 Flowers, 

.          For this reason, the Supreme Court explained in

Powers    that    "a    criminal   defendant    may   object   to   race-based

exclusions       of    jurors   effected   through    peremptory    challenges

whether or not the defendant and the excluded juror share the same

races."    

.          Consequently, denying a defendant's

objection to the strike of a juror "under the misimpression that

the defendant must be of the same race as the stricken juror in

order to raise a Batson challenge . . . runs afoul of Powers v.

Ohio."    Casey, 

 (citing Powers, 

).

            Here, the SJC found that the trial court never explicitly

specified whether Garrey had established a prima facie showing of

discrimination, but -- given the trial court's inquiry into the

prosecutor's reasoning for the challenge -- determined that this

issue had become moot.          See Garrey, 

.       As neither

party challenges this ruling, our review is limited to the SJC's

affirmance   and       characterization    of   the   trial    court's   Batson

step-two and step-three analyses.          In this regard, Garrey does not

claim that the SJC's decision is "contrary to" Batson and its

progeny.   See 

(d)(1).          Instead, Garrey argues that

where the SJC stumbled was in its determination of the facts and

application of the law.




                                     - 20 -
                   1. Unreasonable Determination of Facts

            We turn to whether the SJC's adjudication of Garrey's

claim "resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable

determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in

the State court proceeding."          

(d)(2).2      This is a

"demanding showing" that "cannot be made when 'reasonable minds

reviewing    the    record    might    disagree'     about   the   finding   in

question."     Porter,       

   (alterations   and   nested

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brumfield v. Cain, 

 (2015)).       Our factual inquiry in this context entails parsing

the transcript of the venire proceeding before the trial court.

See id. at 79 ("So framed, the issue before us reduces to a question

of fact, that is, how to parse the prosecutor's explanation.").

            The SJC began its analysis with the following factual

summary of the Commonwealth's peremptory challenge:

            The defendant objected to the prosecutor's
            peremptory challenge of a prospective juror,
            claiming    that    she   was    the    only
            African-American in the venire.    The judge
            initially expressed doubt that she was

     2  Section 2254 also sets out a "more deferential standard,"
Smith v. Dickhaut, 

 (1st Cir. 2016), whereby "a
determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be
presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden
of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing
evidence," 

(e)(1).     As Garrey does not prevail
under § 2254(d)(2)'s "more petitioner-friendly standard," Smith,

, we have no occasion to resolve any "tension" that
might exist between the two overlapping subsections, Porter, 

.

                                      - 21 -
          African-American. After noting that neither
          the defendant nor Skog was African-American,
          the judge asked the prosecutor to provide a
          reason for the challenge.       The prosecutor
          stated she was challenging the prospective
          juror because she was a guidance counsellor,
          and not because of her race.        After some
          discussion,   the   judge    agreed   that   an
          occupation in a rehabilitative field might be
          some indication of a prospective juror's
          inclination toward sympathy, and he allowed
          the challenge.      In response to defense
          counsel's   persistent    concern    that   the
          prospective   juror   was   indeed   the   only
          African-American in the venire, the judge
          asked her if she was a member of a minority
          group, to which she responded affirmatively.
          In concluding the matter, the judge noted that
          the victim, the witnesses, and the defendant
          were not members of a minority, and confirmed
          his decision.

Garrey, 

.           The SJC wove additional factual

findings into its application of Batson and Powers.            See 

.    It   found   that    "the     [trial]   judge   ruled,   without

subscribing to the prosecutor's viewpoint, that because the juror

was engaged in a rehabilitative occupation that probably called on

her to show sympathy for human weakness, the prosecutor's challenge

was legitimate."   

.

          The SJC next found that "[t]he judge engaged both the

prosecutor and defense counsel in a full discussion on the issue

and provided defense counsel with the opportunity to argue whether

the juror's occupation as a guidance counsellor was an adequate

basis to challenge her."       

    "[T]he record," the SJC continued,

"shows that the judge gave the matter meaningful consideration,

                                     - 22 -
[and] we will not second-guess his decision."         

 (internal

quotation marks omitted).   The SJC also noted in a footnote that

"[t]he fact that the defendant, the victim, and the witnesses were

Caucasian was not dispositive of the issue, because the defendant

is entitled to a jury selected by nondiscriminatory criteria, and

prospective jurors are entitled to a discrimination-free jury

selection process."   

 at 429 n.2 (citing Powers, 

).

          Garrey argues that the trial transcript contradicts

these findings.    Our own review, however, leads us to conclude

that they are at least findings about which "reasonable minds

reviewing the record might disagree."    Brumfield, 

.

That brings us to the end of the road under § 2254(d)(2).

          Garrey first takes up the SJC's finding that "[t]he fact

that the defendant, the victim, and the witnesses were Caucasian

was not dispositive of the issue."     Garrey, 

 n.2.

He points out that the trial judge, immediately after observing

that "there [are] absolutely no minorities as either the victims,

the witnesses or the defendant in this case," stated: "I'm going

to allow the challenge on that finding."

          Garrey is correct that if "that finding" is interpreted

to refer to the trial judge's observations about         the   racial

composition of the trial participants, that reading contradicts

the SJC's somewhat ambiguous finding that that status was "not

dispositive."     Garrey, 

 n.2.     But we are not

                              - 23 -
persuaded that no other interpretation is reasonable.                       "That

finding" could also plausibly refer back to the trial judge's prior

statement that "the answer given" by the Commonwealth in response

to the court's questioning was that the juror was struck because

she "was a guidance counselor at the Boston public schools."                 Even

though the trial judge proceeded to mention the racial composition

of the trial participants, he prefaced that remark with, "[a]nd I

also want the record to maintain that . . . ."                 This phrasing,

particularly the use of "[a]nd" and "also," suggests that the

judge's racial composition observation may have been made to record

a separate, additional point -- possibly that Commonwealth counsel

had no litigation motive to exclude any juror on the basis of race.

As such, the observation could reasonably be understood not as the

judge's rationale for allowing the challenge but to reinforce the

judge's previous statement that the prosecutor's challenge was

motivated by the acceptable guidance-counselor rationale.

             Although the transcript does not allow us to reconstruct

this   element    of     the   trial     judge's   reasoning    with   perfect

confidence, it at least supports a reasonable inference that the

trial judge meant to (1) restate the guidance-counselor rationale

for striking the juror, (2) pause to clarify a separate observation

for    the     record,     and    (3) state        his   reliance      on     the

guidance-counselor rationale as the basis for concluding that the

Commonwealth's challenge was allowable.

                                       - 24 -
              We do not suggest that this is the only reasonable

inference the SJC could have drawn.            The trial transcript -- which

elides crucial interpretive cues like tone and gesture -- does not

permit a definitive conclusion as to what the trial judge meant by

"that   finding."       See    Rivera-Carrasquillo       v.   Centro     Ecuestre

Madrigal, Inc., 

 (1st Cir. 2016) (observing that

"[w]e are well-aware of the dangers of trying to glean tone of

voice and demeanor from a cold transcript" but consulting "the

timing and wording of the judge's statements" to ascertain how

"the record could be read").          But even if it is more likely that

the trial judge meant "that finding" to refer to his statement

about racial composition, § 2254(d)(2) requires Garrey to show

more than just comparative likelihood.             "[A] state-court factual

determination     is   not    unreasonable      merely   because   the    federal

habeas court would have reached a different conclusion in the first

instance."     Wood v. Allen, 

 (2010).            All told, we

cannot conclude that it was unreasonable for the SJC to find that

"[t]he fact that the defendant, the victim, and the witnesses were

Caucasian was not dispositive of the issue."             Garrey, 

 n.2.

              Garrey also challenges as unreasonable the SJC's finding

that    the    trial   judge    did    not     "independently . . .       suggest

his . . . own reason why a juror should not serve."                Garrey, 

.      As above, one plausible reading of the transcript

                                      - 25 -
supports a finding that contradicts the SJC's.            After counsel for

the Commonwealth stated that she premised her peremptory challenge

on the stricken juror's occupation as guidance counselor, the trial

judge elaborated as follows:

            Oh, I can tell you that people's occupation,
            whether they're -- whether they're -- whether
            they're people who try and rehabilitate
            everybody and feel sorry for them and all that
            business can certainly be a legitimate
            challenge of behalf of the Commonwealth or the
            defendant. You don't think?

Garrey frames this as a straightforward demonstration that "the

judge   suggested     the   reason    [for    the   prosecutor's   challenge]

himself."      That    framing,      however,   depends   on   a   particular

definition of "the reason" for the Commonwealth's challenge.               We

are not prepared to say that the SJC, which took a narrower view

of "the reason," did so unreasonably.

            The SJC's reasoning makes clear that it believed that

the Commonwealth attorney actively volunteered a "reason" for her

challenge when she stated -- without elaboration -- that the juror

worked as a guidance counselor.           Garrey, 

.       The

SJC appears to have found that the trial judge both engaged in a

permissible step-three Batson analysis and did not supplant the

prosecutor's role at step two by expounding on why someone's

occupation as a guidance counselor would be a non-pretextual basis

for a challenge.       "After the judge required the prosecutor to

justify her challenge," the SJC explained, "he was required to

                                     - 26 -
make an independent evaluation of the prosecutor's reasons and to

determine specifically whether the explanation was bona fide or a

pretext."       Garrey, 

 (emphasis added) (citation

modified).

              These    findings     were    reasonable.       When   a   prosecutor

offers    a    race-neutral        explanation    for   raising      a   peremptory

challenge at Batson's second step, that explanation is not held to

a high standard of elaboration.              See Purkett, 514 U.S. at 767–68

("The second step of this process does not demand an explanation

that is persuasive, or even plausible."); see also Hollis v.

Magnusson, 

 (1st Cir. 2022) (affirming the denial of

a habeas petition where the prosecutor's step-two explanation was,

"I was looking for his level of education and other various factors

that were provided in the list from the court.").

              Against        this       background,          the       prosecutor's

guidance-counselor reason was readily identifiable as the type of

clipped statement that might comprise the beginning and end of

Batson's second step.            It was thus not unreasonable for the SJC to

interpret      the     trial      judge's   subsequent       comment     about   the

legitimacy      of    such   a    justification   as    a    step-three    judicial

analysis of the sufficiency of the prosecutor's tendered reason.

Even if we cannot be certain that the SJC accurately read the trial

judge's observations about the role of a guidance counselor as an

inquiry       into    the      pretextual     nature    of     the     prosecutor's

                                       - 27 -
guidance-counselor explanation, we can at least say that the SJC

made a reasonable finding based on the record before it.              That

means that Garrey cannot prevail under 

(d)(2).

          The reasonableness of the SJC's finding on this point

also leads us to reject Garrey's contention that "[a]s to step

three, the SJC made no ruling to defer to."3            Indeed, it appears

that the SJC made just such a ruling.            The SJC explained that

"[h]ere, the judge ruled, without subscribing to the prosecutor's

viewpoint, that because the juror was engaged in a rehabilitative

occupation that probably called on her to show sympathy for human

weakness, the prosecutor's challenge was legitimate."           Garrey, 

.     The SJC also explained that "[t]he judge engaged

both the prosecutor and defense counsel in a full discussion on

the issue and provided defense counsel with the opportunity to

argue whether the juror's occupation as a guidance counsellor was

an adequate basis to challenge her."       

          These    explanations    go   directly   to    the   question   of

whether "at step three, the court [has] assess[ed] the prosecutor's

explanation, along with other relevant factors, to 'determine if




     3  It is questionable whether Garrey's claim that the trial
court failed to make a step-three finding was sufficiently raised
to the district court; rather, it appears Garrey's petition focused
on the potential Powers error and the purported pretextual nature
of the prosecutor's justification.         However, even assuming
Garrey's    challenge    was   properly    preserved   below,    it
nevertheless -- as we explain above -- lacks merit.
                                  - 28 -
the   defendant       has    established        purposeful    discrimination.'"

Yacouba-Issa v. Calis, 

 (1st Cir. 2022) (quoting

Batson, 

).

              The SJC could have elaborated more on its ruling that

the trial judge adequately supported its step-three analysis.                     Our

review,   however,      is     limited     to    whether     the    SJC   made    an

"unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence

presented in the State court proceeding."             

(d)(2).

The SJC retraced the trial judge's reasoning for accepting the

race-neutral reason tendered by the prosecutor and also noted that

the   judge    gave   each    party   an   opportunity       to    challenge     that

acceptance.      That is not tantamount to ignoring step three of

Batson altogether.          In sum, we are satisfied that Garrey has not

met his considerable burden of demonstrating that no "reasonable

minds reviewing the record" could possibly "disagree about the

finding in question."         Brumfield, 

 (alteration and

internal quotation marks omitted).

                2. Unreasonable Application of Federal Law

              Garrey also contends that the state court's decision

involved an unreasonable application of Batson's second and third

steps and the holding in Powers.            See 

(d)(1).            As

discussed above, he argues that the prosecutor failed to provide

a sufficient step-two explanation for the challenge and that, even

assuming the trial court made a Batson step-three determination,

                                      - 29 -
the context of the strike demonstrates that the prosecutor's given

reason was pretextual.        Moreover, Garrey contends that the trial

court violated Powers by allowing the prosecutor to strike Juror

6-7 on the ground that Garrey, the victim, and trial witnesses

were all not of a minority race.         These arguments do not carry the

day.

              First, it was not unreasonable for the SJC to conclude

that the prosecutor provided an adequate basis for her peremptory

challenge.      See Garrey, 

.                Garrey resists this

conclusion, emphasizing that (1) the prosecutor's "initial bald

denials"      of      discriminatory     intent        are       an    insufficient

justification for a strike under Batson and (2) the explanation

for the strike must come from the prosecutor, not the judge as, in

Garrey's view, was the case here.            It is true that a prosecutor

may not "rebut the defendant's [prima facie] case merely by denying

that he had a discriminatory motive."               Batson, 

.

But the prosecutor's explanation for her strike was not limited to

cursory denials.         The prosecutor, when prompted to provide the

basis   for    her    challenge,   pointed     immediately        to   the   juror's

occupation.        As explained in detail above, the brevity of the

prosecutor's explanation is not fatal to Garrey's conviction.

While   an    in-depth    explanation    may      assist     a    trial   court   in

evaluating      the     persuasiveness       of    a     prosecutor's         stated

justification at step three, the prosecutor need do nothing more

                                    - 30 -
than identify the race-neutral grounds for the strike to satisfy

the prosecution's burden at step two.                   See Sanchez v. Roden, 

 (1st Cir. 2015) ("[W]e easily affirm the district

court's finding that [the prosecutor's] explanation -- that he

struck    Juror    261    because    of     his     age -- is    race-neutral      and

satisfies    the    state's       burden    at    step     two   to   articulate    a

nondiscriminatory reason for the strike." (citation omitted)).

            Garrey also attempts to repackage his challenge to the

SJC's factual finding that the prosecutor (not the trial court)

provided the basis for her strike by arguing that the prosecution

failed to meet its burden under Batson step two.                      To the extent

that this argument differs from Garrey's challenge to the SJC's

factual     determinations        addressed       and     rejected    above,    those

differences do little to swing the balance in his favor.                           Of

course, the trial court's "substitution of a reason for eliminating

[the prospective juror] does nothing to satisfy the prosecutors'

burden of stating a racially neutral explanation for their own

actions." Miller-El v. Dretke, 

 (2005). However,

as we previously have explained, it was reasonable for the SJC to

find that the prosecutor supplied the step-two justification and

that the trial court's comments about the prospective juror's

occupation     were      simply     made     when     evaluating      whether   that

justification was pretextual.              See Garrey, 

.



                                      - 31 -
            Second, having accepted the SJC's finding that the trial

court performed a Batson step-three analysis, we consider and

reject Garrey's argument in the alternative that the state courts

should have found the prosecutor's rationale to be pretextual

because of the prosecutor's "shifting justification" from the

assertion that Juror 6-7's husband was a guidance counselor to the

explanation that it was the juror herself who was a guidance

counselor.    It is true that a "shifting rationale for the strike

could support an inference that [the given] reason was [not]

genuine."    United States v. Bowles, 

 (1st Cir. 2014)

(citing Purkett, 

).       But Garrey -- who bears the

burden of persuasion -- provides no explanation for why such an

inference would be appropriate here. This is not an instance where

the prosecution changed its justification from one reason to

another of an entirely different nature.     See Foster, 

 (stating that the prosecution's shifting reasons for a

strike, which changed from the similarity between the prospective

juror's son and the defendant to juror's religious objections to

the death penalty, suggested that those reasons were pretextual);

Bowles, 

 (finding counsel's response to court raised

possibility of pretext where counsel's explanation for peremptory

challenge changed from "nothing to do with the fact she's Asian

American," to "I don't like her," to ultimately "[h]er age").    Any

"shift" in the Commonwealth's reasoning was modest, since the

                                - 32 -
impetus for the prosecution's objection, at its core, remained the

same: the exclusion of a person who either was, or had close

contact with someone who was, a guidance counselor in a public

school.

           Nor can we agree with Garrey's characterization of the

prosecutor's mistake as a "misstate[ment of] the record" that can

be viewed as a "clue showing discriminatory intent."     See Flowers,

.    The prosecutor made the misstatement and, when

asked again by the trial court to explain her basis for the

peremptory challenge, corrected the record of her own volition.      A

mistake of this nature is not the kind that reveals a neutral

justification is actually a pretext for racial discrimination.

See 

 (finding it "telling" that prosecutor made "a series of

factually inaccurate explanations" relating to several prospective

jurors such that at times the judge had to correct on the record).

As the Supreme Court has explained, "the back and forth of a Batson

hearing can be hurried, and prosecutors can make mistakes when

providing explanations.     That is entirely understandable, and

mistaken   explanations   should   not   be   confused   with   racial

discrimination."4   

     4  Garrey also contends that the Commonwealth's stated reason
for the strike was pretextual because the juror's occupation bore
no relation to the case given that there was no evidence the juror
believed in rehabilitation or would otherwise be sympathetic to
him. Even assuming only a marginal correlation between the juror's


                              - 33 -
           Finally, Garrey's claim of Powers error, while perhaps

facially attractive, ultimately tarnishes upon closer inspection.

As noted above, Garrey argues that the SJC's mention of Powers in

a   footnote   and   its   failure    to   address   how   the    race    of   the

defendant, witnesses, and the victim was discussed by the trial

court was an unreasonable application of Powers.                 We acknowledge

that the SJC's discussion of Powers was brief.              However, "[o]ur

'highly deferential standard for evaluating state court rulings'

requires that we read the SJC's opinion in such a way as to give

its choice of language 'the benefit of the doubt.'"                      Ayala v.

Alves, 

, 58 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting Woodford v.

Visciotti, 

 (2002)).            As such, we "review[] the

full context" of a state court "decision to determine that the

state court implicitly addressed an issue despite not explicitly

saying it was doing so."       

 (describing Bell v. Cone, 

 (2005) (per curiam)).             Here the SJC found, at least

implicitly, that the trial court engaged in some preliminary

discussion about the prosecutor's peremptory challenge after the

petitioner objected to it, asked the prosecutor to state her reason



occupation and her potential to favor a criminal defendant, we can
easily conclude that the connection is not so attenuated so as to
make the SJC's affirmance unreasonable. Cf. Dolphy v. Mantello,

 (2d Cir. 2009) (holding that trial court failed
to properly apply Batson because, even though prosecution had
offered a facially race-neutral justification, "it rested
precariously on an intuited correlation between body fat and
sympathy for person accused of crimes").
                                     - 34 -
for the peremptory challenge without first making a formal step-one

finding, and then concluded that the prosecutor's reason was

legitimate in light of all relevant circumstances.                     See Garrey,

.            In discussing the trial court's having

proceeded    to     Batson      step    two     before     making      a   step-one

determination, the SJC included the footnote, described above,

that   "[t]he     fact   that   the    defendant,    the       victim[,]   and   the

witnesses were Caucasian was not dispositive of the issue, because

the defendant is entitled to a jury selected by nondiscriminatory

criteria, and prospective jurors are entitled to a discrimination-

free jury selection process."            

 at 429 n.2.         Read in context,

this citation to Powers suggests that the SJC concluded that the

trial judge asked the prosecutor for her reason for the strike

rather than ending the Batson inquiry at step one simply because

Garrey, the victim, and the witnesses were not of the same race as

the juror.      This conclusion fully comports with Powers' holding.

            That the trial court otherwise inquired into the race of

the potential juror does not a Powers error make.                The SJC observed

that the trial court noted at the beginning of the relevant

colloquy that Garrey and the victim were white and then, toward

the end of his discussion with the parties, "that the victim, the

witnesses, and the defendant were not members of a minority,

[before   he]     confirmed     his    decision."        

.     The



                                       - 35 -
references to the defendant's race thus, the SJC found, occurred

at step one and step three of the Batson framework.

          It was not an unreasonable application of Batson and

Powers for the SJC to affirm Garrey's conviction, given the context

in which these discussions arose.      The persuasiveness of the

prosecutor's justification and evidence of discriminatory intent

is a "fact-driven evaluation of all the relevant circumstances."5

Sanchez, 

 (citing Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

 (2003)); see also Synder v. Louisiana, 

(2008) (noting that when considering a Batson challenge, "all of

the circumstances that bear upon the issue of racial animosity

must be consulted"); Batson, 

 ("[A] court must

undertake 'a sensitive inquiry into such circumstantial and direct

evidence of intent as may be available.'" (quoting Arlington

Heights v. Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp., 

 (1977))).

As such, while Powers prohibits trial courts from using difference

in race to prevent a defendant from raising a Batson objection,

other circuits have approved consideration of the race of the

defendant, the victim, the witnesses, and the potential juror in


     5  Other such relevant circumstances, not specifically
addressed by the SJC but still apparent on the record, include the
prosecutor's voluntary clarification that there was one witness
who was Hispanic and her stated lack of awareness as to the race
of the prospective juror. These record facts tend to support the
credibility   of   the   prosecutor   and,   by   extension,   the
reasonableness of the state courts' decisions upholding the
peremptory challenge.
                              - 36 -
performing step-one and step-three analyses.                     See, e.g., Brinson

v. Vaughn, 

 (3d Cir. 2005) (noting that "the race

of a victim, the witnesses, and the defendant may be relevant [to

a Batson challenge] because these facts may have a bearing on a

prosecutor's        motivation      to    use   racially       based   strikes     in   a

particular case"); Keel v. French, 

 (4th Cir.

1998) ("While the defendant need not be a member of the same race

as the excused jurors in order to raise a Batson challenge, that

[the defendant] and the jurors are of different races eliminates

the argument that the jurors sympathize with the defendant because

they share the same race." (citation omitted)); United States v.

Stephens, 

 (7th Cir. 2005) (listing as relevant

to Batson step-one inquiry                the fact that         "the defendant was

African-American and all of the witnesses were Caucasian"); United

States   v.    Smith,    

,    655-56    (11th    Cir.    2019)

(explaining         factors    a    district       court   should      consider    when

assessing a claim of discrimination as part of a Batson challenge,

including "the race of the defendant, and the racial composition

of the remaining pool of potential jurors").                      That other courts

have found these factors relevant in a                         Batson analysis      only

bolsters      our     conclusion        that    the    SJC's    decision    here    was

reasonable.     See Linton v. Saba, 

 (1st Cir. 2016)

("That this Court and other circuits have used language and

analysis in line with that used by the SJC adds further force to

                                          - 37 -
the conclusion that the SJC's formulation is not one with which

'fairminded jurists' could not agree.").

          In short, the trial court's discussion of Garrey's, the

witnesses', the victim's, and the prospective juror's races can

reasonably be read as having occurred as part of the court's

fact-intensive step-three analysis.          Garrey's ability to raise his

Batson challenge was never questioned by the trial court, and thus

we fail to find a Powers error.          See, e.g., Casey, 

   (finding    Powers    error     where     district     court     denied

defendant's Batson challenge on the ground that, inter alia,

potential juror had not identified as the same race as defendant

and thus defendant had not made "prima facie case of purposeful

discrimination").

                             III. Conclusion

          Although    we     have    determined    that      the   SJC   could

reasonably view the trial judge's performance of the three-step

Batson inquiry here as adequate and complete, we acknowledge that

the trial court could easily have more clearly followed the Batson

procedure and explicitly stated a ruling on each of the three

prongs: first, that the defendant had established a prima facie

showing of discrimination based on the juror's race; second, that

the prosecutor had provided a race-neutral explanation for the

juror challenge; and third, that the court found no pretext based

on explicitly stated factors that led the judge to that conclusion.

                                    - 38 -
Nothing in this opinion should be read as endorsing the more casual

and truncated approach employed by the trial court in this case.

That being said, for the reasons described above, the judgment of

the district court is affirmed.




                              - 39 -