context: Significantly, the trial judge also had the ability to observe the prosecutor's demeanor to determine whether she appeared to be telling the truth, evidence which would not be evident in the record. Both the majority opinion and the record are devoid of any basis for concluding that the prosecutor's statements and demeanor left the trial judge with no permissible alternative but to reject the prosecutor's race-neutral justifications.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 500 U.S. 369, 369
citation_a.parenthetical: "Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous."
citation_a.sentence: See Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 369, 111 S.Ct. 1859 (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the fact-finder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.parenthetical: stating that Section 2254 "demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt"
citation_b.sentence: See also Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24, 123 S.Ct. 357, 154 L.Ed.2d 279 (2002) (stating that Section 2254 “demands that state court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt”).