With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of the doubt or should have questioned the prosecutor’s credibility. We conclude that this determination was an unreasonable determination of the facts because the prosecutor failed to offer any credible justification for striking Jurors 016 and 019. First, we note that the prosecutor consistently identified Jurors 016 and 019 as “both young.” However, the record re veals that Juror 019 was at least a middle-aged grandmother. Indeed, Juror 019 informed the court that she was a retired nurse with seven grown children, the youngest of which had five children of her own. A prosecutor supplied with this information could not credibly identify Juror 019 as young. This incorrect factual statement supports Collins’ argument that the prosecutor was not credible. See McClain, 217 F.3d at 1222 (<HOLDING>); Caldwell v. Maloney, 159 F.3d 639, 651 (1st

A: holding that clear and convincing reasons are not required to reject contradicted conclusions of a treating physician
B: holding that reasons for excusing black jurors that were objectively contradicted by the record provided evidence of purposeful discrimination
C: holding that the white defendants association with a black defendant was not sufficient to give them standing to join in the black defendants batson challenge
D: holding that where a treating physicians opinion is contradicted by a consulting physician the alj must explain on the record the reasons for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician
B.