Removal of a juror under Michigan law is therefore at the discretion of the trial court, weighing a defendant's fundamental right to a fair and impartial jury with his right to retain the jury originally chosen to decide his fate. People v. Wofford , No. 318642, 2015 WL 1214463, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015) (brackets in original) (quoting Tate , 624 N.W.2d at 529 (cleaned up)). Analyzing Wofford's case under this rubric, the MCOA made several factual findings.

In the course of its analysis, that court found, among other things, that there was " ‘no evidence’ of ‘what way the jury was leaning’ or ‘the potential division’ at the time [the juror] was removed." Id. at 697 (quoting People v. Wofford , 2015 WL 1214463, at *2 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015) ). On habeas review, the Sixth Circuit treated the state appellate court's "no evidence" finding as a factual determination that was subject to review under Section 2254(d)(2).

Indeed, the Michigan Court of Appeals at one point cast Wofford's claim as a "due process" violation. People v. Wofford, No. 318642, 2015 WL 1214463, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2015). And in the meat of its analysis, it relied on the standard set out in People v. Tate, 624 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).