Whether the trial court erred in denying Jenkins' Batson challenge during jury selection

No question identified. : QUESTIO NS) : [4 one \vatertios ! venir’ contendsve verdict ex Mme Wer i of the feat. cluded potential a Should be Set Si iWicit ased © jerors duri aside be \Ct PUCPOS ntheir 7a¢ uring the cavseth artistevis e tne oppesech ‘Seldom wil th Selection process < prosecvtor Meo ence The inqui poses shnifki e diserim| i atthe mp\etel guity advances | fing burden wetory actor start cikizen 35 ! executes, shroud ces in three 5t0qeS 8 of production gon the det Cini quarantees @ Batson vio 4 Lf these of citeum st” third] $+ : qual rotect| latton be pres stages ans we protons serinpour deur en of the You hs Oe wrneg Jenkins ees at the digirt Purpose antastic justiicati vrketh Court ing aU. Loan & Cour? ( discrimi | jostification ma explamned 4" of the £ S procs ination. “5 y Cand probate . At the Hird se Bae ee cles okie he ee at 168one jy toitl) be aang 40 court to feeireviring x the whe Bars e steikes of J.C ere ae NS argued 2 drsteee, om the (a5 the enim on procedure Cyne DF followed tne ruler a court shee ol analysis NA al remed yer completely Far bt as Hah re reresy oP collapses io er the foi AY the case he rerrrende ree 4 addtsss Ve hte aN cred Je cerned the elec ber aisen fi te Hee distric to pee: diilty based deters bork Ree ‘ ane worl. Generath ’ B eto shen eee Oui deter mi nati the dist son's third step i ye viren atson Steps p three anal S.Ct. 17 ation rest heck ct coort £ step in mala an this case Yy Sate v Wsis wh 64, (31 LEd. 2d St with the di c proper anal "4. “< required. + becavse he olten, peihiael coork eae) ¢ ener ¥ court. Sel fo u Should het remend fo Sno ceo te eat oe coilapsin ng COS with an pon the lower © 2 proper B to be Teaewed 3d 324 C20k the second a eect . POT record Court filo stson heari by the a ol) Cond nd Hrd id the clos; by the inial | ME Case law i v4, We are the ° The lower conn aryum ewyers 2 w instead of . . "Since the ents provid ren Me pre: aking @ coli Aa resultingtn » ve a re cometary prod nq based t n Shite burden 2 verdict bag \enited to Irist d eee deprive Se € with | nase te ‘me ial? De 3 Jonette ty Haste g other & Pro yf ANY ; 2 Te n of Land 7 vis the ‘ secure 20d of fe vent ot end eens ok One Mel pom \idence ce frome the : yeti den ae Antal. wees involled saters, so sh ‘mony mporing Sentc 2 pros ccwtor ass on. nents beker Prosecutor S: ele Tights ro ¥ wor nek pron neaiehe Wr seein scsetyen = tata noone o se conse “ « Ther w “3d plq ometh one © -™m b them a ero en shorty ae overwhel mine dart | test cound explain ery, 2 at hone and peer aperer the ev Poncies acemsss: thon mend IS leas imeny to h a San list also at les keys as nents Bashi cat] ° Stokes wie ett rove on their weak, 0 Jenieme net Heen st implied fhe 4 the ten ae nesses Beco Me evidlenc Un eate ute Toe ona Stent wi the Poco ner taken mestiqatets sno vide revere ihe prosecutor ter al ‘es cartes cell rom himalthens nepp ened ele £31 She S mandated) i crattith oon of oor prone was cr ough he later fy ident ran on ld Gatery hove be the prance ems case Psi Thee § se racked before und id cumplatiy, ein a lesser t ¢ Mey be 5 uring desin Bo Ne eye-witness te Cobb (51 Did the VE error T included ° destruct 4 ®rqu Ce an Ahi testim~ e drial court | deay 5, Jory 5 tue of ment ? U.S TS CaSe 45 ack Sosa ens OF nstrock he Tight Ang en risdizhon dur ‘eo Laie Wee ? ton? ght 40 0 foir Hes g the gate mal °, the} * asthe yuridoe Y hon Faxed Made-Up, a £ / or abricated?