Whether striking black jurors by using racially charged characteristics unrelated to the case is permissibly race-neutral

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This case involves the killing of a white teenager by a black defendant. The case was so racially charged that the defense attorneys — who were also black — were granted funding by the trial court for private security after being victimized by vandalism and racially motivated death threats. Twice, over the course of two consecutive trials, the prosecutor struck each black juror seated. The defense repeatedly objected under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (Batson). Each time, the objections were denied. In justifying his strikes of the black jurors, the prosecutor repeatedly cited their responses to the question: “Were you upset with the criminal jury’s verdict in the O.J. Simpson case?” The stricken jurors — and all black potential jurors in the entire venire — uniformly answered this question by checking “no.” 1. Should this court resolve the conflict in the lower courts concerning whether striking black jurors by using racially charged characteristics unrelated to the case is permissibly race-neutral? 2. If a reviewing court finds many of the prosecution’s justifications for its strikes flawed, and also finds that numerous justifications apply equally to seated jurors, may that court bolster the prosecutor’s showing by relying on differences between stricken and seated jurors that were cited neither by the prosecutor nor by the state’s attorneys on appeal? 3. Should this Court hold this case in abeyance pending its resolution of Flowers v. Mississippi, ___ 8.Ct. ___ (2018) (No. 17-9572)? i