Defendant, a Black man, was charged with crimes related to the death of his 15-month-old daughter. Following a trial, the jury returned its verdict finding defendant guilty of murder by abuse, first-degree criminal mistreatment, and witness tampering. Defendant appeals from the resulting judgment of conviction. Relying on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and a series of cases beginning with Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), defendant assigns error to the trial courts decision to excuse the only two black persons on the panel of prospective jurors, jurors number 6 and number 9, upon the states use of two of its peremptory strikes against those jurors. Defendant also assigns error to the courts giving of a nonunanimous jury instruction and to the courts receipt of a nonunanimous verdict on the witness tampering count. We reject without discussion the states argument that defendant did not adequately preserve his Batson challenges, and we conclude that the trial court committed reversible error when it excused juror number 6 and juror number 9, upon the states peremptory strikes. Our conclusion on that assignment of error obviates the need for us to address the remaining two assignments.
We begin with the axiom, no longer subject to reasonable debate, that racial discrimination in the selection of jurors is harmful. Racial discrimination harms litigants because it carries with it the risk that “prejudice *** will infect the entire proceeding[.]” J. E. B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 140, 114 S. Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed .2d 89 (1994). Racial discrimination harms the individuals who are excluded from serving as jurors because it prevents them from participating in our justice system. Id. And racial discrimination harms the community “by the States participation in the perpetuation of invidious group stereotypes and the inevitable loss of confidence” in the justice system that follows. Id.
American jurisprudence has developed slowly to combat racial discrimination in criminal proceedings, including jury (grand and petit) selection processes, and is based in large part on the constitutional right to an “impartial jury”
1
and the requirement that every defendant be afforded “equal protection of the laws.”
2
Under the Sixth Amendment, a person who has been charged with a serious offense has a fundamental right to trial by a jury that is drawn from “a fair cross-section of the community.” State v. Compton, 333 Or. 274, 288, 39 P.3d 833 (2002). Defendant does not raise a “fair cross-section” challenge to the jury pool itself. He does, however, argue that he is entitled to a jury of his “peers.” The federal constitution does not use the word “peers.” The Oregon constitution likewise does not use the word “peers.” Instead, both documents use the word “impartial” to describe the type of jury to which a criminal defendant is entitled. We do not understand defendant to argue that he was entitled to have his race represented on the trial jury. We understand his argument to instead focus on the states use of peremptory strikes to exclude the only two black persons from the jury panel after having already concluded that they were qualified to serve on the jury in this case and having, thus, passed those jurors for cause. Those challenges are examined using the framework established by Batson, as developed through subsequent caselaw.
As we have explained, “[t]o bring a Batson challenge,” defendant must first “make a prima facie showing that a peremptory strike was based on race or gender.” State v. Curry, 298 Or. App. 377, 381, 447 P.3d 7 (2019), adhd to on recons, 302 Or. App. 640, 461 P.3d 1106 (2020). “ ‘Once the defendant makes a prima facie showing, the burden shifts to the State to come forward with a neutral explanation for challenging *** jurors within an arguably targeted class.’ ” Id. at 382, 447 P.3d 7 (quoting Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 106 S.Ct. 1712). If the state offers such an explanation, “then the trial court must, after consulting ‘all of the circumstances that bear on racial animosity,’ determine whether the defendant has shown purposeful racial discrimination by the state.” Id. (quoting Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 478, 128 S. Ct. 1203, 170 L. Ed. 2d 175 (2008)). We are to assess the plausibility of the states race-neutral explanation as we consider all the circumstances present and discern whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination. Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 252, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) (“[W]hen illegitimate grounds like race are in issue, a prosecutor simply has got to state his reasons as best he can and stand or fall on the plausibility of the reasons he gives. A Batson challenge does not call for a mere exercise in thinking up any rational basis.”).
The state does not dispute that defendant made a prima facie showing that the peremptory challenges in question were race-based. And defendant does not dispute that the reasons given by the state for using those peremptory challenges are race-neutral. We are likewise satisfied that those first two showings under Batson were made. We, thus, turn our attention to the key issue, the third Batson step: whether the states use of two of its peremptory strikes to remove the only two black persons on the panel of prospective jurors was the product of purposeful racial discrimination. We review the trial courts ruling that a peremptory challenge was not the product of purposeful discrimination as a question of fact. Curry, 298 Or. App. at 389, 447 P.3d 7. A court reviewing a Batson challenge is to consider “all relevant circumstances,” id. at 382, 447 P.3d 7, which may include a comparative juror analysis where the record allows for it, State v. Vandyke, 318 Or. App. 235, 238, 507 P.3d 339 (2022).
3
We remain mindful that, at Batson’s third step, defendant bears the burden of persuasion. We are to affirm the trial courts ruling unless it is “clearly erroneous.” Snyder, 552 U.S. at 477, 128 S.Ct. 1203.
We look to the record to determine whether the trial courts rejection of defendants Batson challenges was clearly in error. Vandyke, 318 Or. App. at 238, 507 P.3d 339. We begin by noting that the usual process of jury selection pursuant to ORS 136.210 through 136.270 was followed. The prospective jurors completed written questionnaires containing 174 questions, and they participated in the oral process of voir dire that spanned a period of four to five hours in the courtroom. A number of prospective jurors were excused by the court, for cause—that is to say, for reasons ranging from inadequate qualifications to conflicts to bias. The state did not challenge juror number 6 or juror number 9 for cause and, in fact, affirmatively passed each for cause. Both jurors were, thus, seated in the jury box when the states prosecutor used two of her available peremptory challenges to strike them from the jury as provided in ORS 136.230 and ORCP 57 D.
When the state exercised one of its available peremptory strikes on juror number 6, this dialogue took place:
“[PROSECUTOR]: So Number 6, ***.
“THE COURT: Okay.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: We would make a Batson objection to that, Your Honor.
“THE COURT: Okay. Is there any further argument on that?
“* * * * *
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Just that hes entitled to a jury of his peers. We only have a total of two black individuals, potentially, on this jury, and we believe that it would be a Batson violation to eliminate him.
“THE COURT: And for the State?
“[PROSECUTOR]: Judge, so there are numerous concerns that the State has regarding this individuals ability to be fair and impartial in this case. Referencing just his questionnaire, he indicated on the very last page that, ‘Being a father with two daughters myself, I cant imagine what hes going through,’ in reference to [defendant]. He didnt believe police officers to be honest. In fact, he agreed, rated it a two, that police officers often lie. He indicated agreement with the notion that he will be uncomfortable deciding guilt or innocence—or guilt or not guilt [sic]. He agreed that doctors often get it wrong. He indicated that he would be more likely to require evidence of motive, for needing to know all the facts or circumstances surrounding a murder before being able to make a determination. And he indicated agreement that DNA evidence is not reliable.
“Here in court, he indicated that he would need more information or more evidence given that this is a murder case rather than if this were some sort of other trial, which of course, the Court knows, is not the—does not comport with the burden of proof. Theres no higher burden of proof in a murder case than in a theft case, for example. And, frankly, he—he showed up to jury service wearing a shirt that says I have issues. I dont know what that means, but that, in and of itself, is also concerning to the State.
“So, for all of those reasons, we believe that he would be bias[ed] to the State, and a Batson challenge—no showing has been made to support a Batson challenge.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think that it mischaracterizes both whats in the questionnaire and what he testified—or what he said here. He indicated that he was beaten as a child. Thats no longer socially acceptable. He indicated that he would have to know all of the facts, but that he would follow the standard of proof that was provided. He also indicated that it would be very difficult to presume my client innocent given that hes a father. So he indicated, very clearly, issues for both sides. And again, given all of the answers that he did give, I dont think that you can judge somebody.
“He wasnt brought back down for additional questioning by the Prosecution about these concerns. And they didnt make a for-cause challenge for him. My client is entitled to a jury of his peers, and we believe it is clearly—comes under Batson.
“THE COURT: Okay. All right. So, based on the entire record that we have here, the Court is going to allow the States challenge. Theres no Batson violation, then.”
The trial court made no findings beyond those quoted above when it overruled defendants Batson objection, accepted the states peremptory challenge to juror number 6, and excused that juror from further service. But that lack of findings does not render review impossible. If it is clear from the “entire record” that the trial courts rejection of defendants Batson objections was in error, then it is our obligation to say so and to correct that error.
Defendant argues that the prosecutor misinterpreted the record when it described for the trial court the answers given by juror number 6 and that, in doing so, she misrepresented the record to the court, a factor that we should consider, citing Flowers v. Mississippi, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2228, 2243, 204 L. Ed. 2d 638 (2019). The state agrees that under Flowers, a “series of factually inaccurate explanations for striking black prospective jurors” can supply evidence of “discriminatory intent,” Flowers, 139 S. Ct. at 2250, but it does not agree that such a series of inaccuracies exists here. We agree with defendant that there were, in fact, discrepancies between the states characterization of juror number 6s answers to certain questions and the answers actually given by that juror. For example, the state advised the court that in the questionnaire, “[juror number 6] didnt believe police officers to be honest. In fact, he agreed, rated it a two, that police officers often lie.” In fact, juror number 6 rated police officers at a “4” for honesty on a scale of “1” (dishonest) to “5” (honest). He also rated his belief that police officers are more likely to testify truthfully than other witnesses with a “2,” on a scale of “1” (strongly agree) to “4” (strongly disagree). There are other discrepancies between the answers given by juror number 6 and how the state characterized those answers for the court, none of which, separately, or together, clearly establish purposeful racial discrimination. And yet, those discrepancies are circumstances relevant to the overall Batson analysis.
Defendant also argues that other jurors “provided the same or, in the prosecutors perspective, worse answers to the questions relied on by the prosecutor,” to strike juror number 6 and that that is evidence of purposeful discrimination. The state responds that “to the extent the record is even adequate for a comparative-juror analysis, defendant fails to identify any comparison that reveals purposeful discrimination.” Defendant did not ask the trial court to engage in a comparative-juror analysis, but where, as here, the record allows us to do so, we will undertake such an analysis. Vandyke, 318 Or. App. at 238, 507 P.3d 339; Curry, 298 Or. App. at 382, 447 P.3d 7. In doing so, we begin by focusing on the questions and the two “main areas of concern” that the state identified about juror number 6. See Appendix A, Juror Comparison Table for Juror Number 6.
First, the state points to the prosecutors concern that juror number 6 might expect the state to prove motive in order to convict the defendant of murder. Juror number 6 “strongly agreed” that the state must prove motive to convict someone of murder. He also “strongly disagreed” that, if convinced by the evidence that someone is guilty of murder, he could find them guilty even if he does not know all the facts that led to the murder, and he “strongly disagreed” that “murder is murder, and understanding motives and circumstances are not necessary in determining guilt.” A review of the questionnaires completed by the non-black jurors who were not stricken from the jury reveals that three also strongly agreed that the state must prove motive to convict someone of murder. Four non-black jurors strongly disagreed that, if convinced by the evidence that someone is guilty of murder, they could find him guilty even if they do not know all of the facts that led to the murder. Six non-black jurors “strongly disagreed” that “murder is murder, and understanding motives and circumstances are not necessary in determining guilt.” While none of the non-black jurors answered each of those three questions exactly the same as juror number 6, two of them answered two of the three questions just as juror number 6 did. Juror number 6 and thirteen other non-black jurors who were not excluded “strongly agreed” that a defendant is innocent unless the state proves otherwise; one non-black juror “agreed” with that statement; and one non-black juror “disagreed.”
Next, the state was concerned that juror number 6 did not regard police officers to be honest. As noted earlier, there were some discrepancies between the jurors responses to questions bearing on his view of police officers and the way in which those answers were characterized for the trial court. Juror number 6 agreed that police officers are honest, and six non-black jurors who were not excused from the jury also rated their view of police officer honesty at a “4”—meaning that they agreed that police officers are honest. Juror number 6 and seven non-black jurors who were not excused from the jury agreed that police officers are more likely to testify truthfully than other witnesses. More important to our Batson analysis, two of those seven non-black jurors who remained on the jury agreed, along with juror number 6, that police officers often lie.
Finally, the state expressed concern about juror number 6s “skepticism regarding scientific evidence.” In particular, the state noted that juror number 6 agreed that “DNA evidence is not reliable,” and he agreed that “doctors often get it wrong.” It is accurate that no non-black juror agreed that DNA evidence is unreliable, but this was not a case that involved DNA as evidence of identity or any other key issue. And one non-black juror also agreed that doctors often get it wrong. Defendant points out that juror number 6 and six other jurors who were not removed from the jury strongly agreed with the statements that doctors are honest, and that forensic evidence is more persuasive than eyewitness testimony. Three jurors who rated DNA evidence as reliable also disagreed with the statement that forensic evidence is more persuasive than eyewitness testimony. Three others strongly disagreed with that statement. Thus, juror number 6 gave answers that reflect both skepticism and trust regarding scientific evidence as did some non-black jurors who were not stricken by the state through use of its peremptories.
The answers relied on by the state as race-neutral reasons for using one of its peremptory strikes against juror number 6 reflect that the jurors personal views on police officers and doctors, and his views on the type of evidence and level of proof needed for a conviction in a murder case are similar to the answers given by non-black jurors who were not stricken from the jury. It is certainly challenging to understand why the state would strike juror number 6 but not, for example, juror number 32, who strongly agreed that the state must prove motive in a murder case, and who strongly disagreed that he would be able to find someone guilty of murder without knowing the facts that led up to the murder—even with convincing evidence of murder. It is likewise difficult to understand why juror number 6 was stricken but juror number 31 was not stricken even though juror number 31 agreed that the state had to prove motive, disagreed that he could find someone guilty of murder despite convincing evidence if he did not know all the facts leading up to the murder, disagreed that forensic evidence is more persuasive than eyewitness testimony, and agreed that doctors often “get it wrong.”
To summarize, when consulting the record before it at the point when the Batson challenge to juror number 6 was made, the following basic information had been brought to the attention of, and was available to, the trial court:
• Defendant is black;
• Juror number 6 is black;
• There are two jury panel members who are black;
• The state passed juror number 6 for cause;
• Of the ten questions and answers highlighted by the state as providing race-neutral reasons to remove juror number 6 from the jury, there were other jurors who were not black and who were not stricken from the jury who had answered eight of those questions the same way as juror number 6;
• Juror number 6 was the only juror to agree with the statement that DNA evidence is unreliable;
• Juror number 6 answered questions relating generally to forensic and medical evidence the same as some non-black jurors who were not stricken from the jury;
• The exhibit list included photos, medical records, an autopsy report, and forensic lab reports; DNA evidence is not mentioned;
• Juror number 6 “strongly agreed” that every defendant is innocent unless the state proves otherwise, while one non-black juror disagreed with that statement and one non-black juror strongly disagreed with it;
• Juror number 6 was the only juror to answer “very difficult” to the question about how difficult it would be to presume a person is innocent who is charged with killing his daughter;
• The state mischaracterized some of the answers given by juror number 6 in its argument to the trial court;
• Juror number 6 acknowledged during voir dire that it was “possible” he might “self-impose” a higher standard in a case like this; and
• Juror number 6 wore a shirt with the words “I have issues” written on it.
On answers for which the state criticized juror number 6, other jurors gave similar answers. And as to the two questions on which juror number 6 gave unique answers—(1) DNA evidence was not material and other answers that reflected views more generally about scientific evidence were similar to answers given by non-black jurors, and (2) this jurors difficulty in presuming the innocence of a father accused of killing his daughter would seem to favor the state. To be sure, the state could have objected that a juror biased toward conviction is still improperly biased, but that was not a reason the state offered to explain its challenge to the juror, so we do not consider it. Given that the state characterized some of the answers of juror number 6 inaccurately and given that the state criticizes answers given by juror number 6 that are the very same answers given by some other non-black jurors, we are not persuaded that the record is sufficient to support the plausibility of the states justification for its challenge to juror number 6. And in this instance, “all the circumstances” as to juror number 6 includes the states challenge to juror number 9. Ultimately, the “plausibility” of the states justifications as to both jurors determines the issue of purposeful discrimination.
We move to the states use of an available peremptory challenge to strike juror number 9 from the jury. See Appendix B, Juror Comparison Table for Juror Number 9.
This is the dialogue that took place with respect to defendants Batson challenge:
“[PROSECUTOR]: Thank you, Judge. The State would move to excuse Number 9, ***.
“THE COURT: Okay. And then for the Defense?
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Again, were making a Batson challenge. [Juror number 9] is the only other black person on this jury, Your Honor.
“[PROSECUTOR]: So, Judge, I think there has to be more of a showing from the Defense. But regardless, [juror number 9], in his jury questionnaire indicated he had no experience with children. He leaned towards strongly agreeing that he believes that in our criminal justice system that innocent people are routinely being found guilty. He indicated yesterday that he would have concerns about police investigation if there were the notion that they just simply didnt do their job, or they were too busy to do their job. He indicated he would, on the questionnaire, need to know about particular facts or circumstances leading up to a murder in order to find someone guilty. Or if he otherwise believes them to be guilty, he would still want to know the facts or circumstances leading up to that.
“And then yesterday, he indicated that he was more likely to excuse behavior if the child was injured due to reckless conduct as opposed to intentional. There was quite a long discussion about that issue. And he was one of the few that actually volunteered and commented on a distinction in his mind between looking more—less concerned about conduct thats—that occurred recklessly versus intentionally to injuring this child.
“The Courts aware that the State—the State believes a juror could be bias[ed] one way or another. The States not obligated to make a for-cause challenge. I dont think anything he said would rise to the level of a for-cause challenge, which is why we did not make that motion for [juror number 9] or for [juror number 6]. But, nonetheless, given those reasons, the State has concerns about his ability to be fair and impartial on this particular case, given the information the Court knows about the nature of this case.
“[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I think that the selection by the State to eliminate the only two black potential jurors in the jury pool is clearly a Batson issue for this Court. It does violate my clients constitutional right to have a jury of his peers. There was nothing in his answers to indicate that he would not follow the law or that he had a particular bias one way or the other.
“With regards to his specific answers on the questionnaire, he works for the U.S. Postal Service, has trust for both the police and for the justice system. He did indicate that sometimes innocent people can be found guilty, but it is not okay to use corporal punishment. He indicated, very clearly, that he would understand the reasonable doubt that has to be shown by the Court—or by the Prosecution. And it would eliminate the only other black juror.
“THE COURT: Okay. So based on the entire record that we have here, again, the State has articulated reasons for their challenges to the particular juror that indicate there is not a Batson violation here. And so well allow the States challenge here.”
Of the non-black jurors who had been passed for cause, five answered that they had no experience with children. One other juror indicated that they agreed that innocent people are frequently found guilty in our justice system, and one wrote that “[i]t does happen, but I dont know how frequently.” Juror number 9 and three non-black jurors “disagreed” that if they are convinced by the evidence that someone is guilty of murder, they could find that person guilty if they did not know all of the facts that led to the murder; and four non-black jurors “strongly disagreed” with that statement. With respect to concerns about statements made by juror number 9 during the voir dire process in the courtroom, we cannot conclude based on the record that juror number 9 responded as the prosecutor argued he did. The record does reflect discussion among counsel and various jurors about differences between accidents and intentional acts and about whether police sometimes get too busy to conduct adequate investigations.
To summarize, when consulting the record before it at the point when the Batson challenge to juror number 9 was made, the following basic information had been brought to the attention of, and was available to, the trial court:
• Defendant is black;
• Juror number 9 is black;
• Juror number 6, who is black, had been excused on the states peremptory strike, leaving juror number 9 as the only black panel member left;
• The state passed juror number 9 for cause; and
• At least one non-black juror answered each of the questions highlighted by the state the same way as juror number 9 did.
Like juror number 6, some non-black jurors gave answers that were the same or similar to answers given by juror number 9. And, as the state correctly notes, no “single answer can[ ] be viewed in isolation.” The answers to some questions provide context for the answers to other questions; sometimes answers appear to be consistent with other answers and yet some seem to be in direct conflict with others. But that was predictable just given the sheer volume of questions included in the questionnaire. Considering, as we must, the race-neutral reasons given by the state in support of its use of a peremptory strike against juror number 9, there were two important factors present at that point in the jury selection process that had not been present when the state explained its use of a peremptory strike against juror number 6: (1) no answer given by juror number 9 was his alone—in other words, no one answer caused him to stand out from the other jurors, and (2) the state had already stricken the only other black juror from the panel. And while one might debate whether it takes two, three, or more of anything to create a pattern, the use of a peremptory challenge to strike the second and only remaining black juror from the jury completes the pattern here.
Peremptory strikes are a tool entrusted to trial lawyers by statute; they are not a matter of constitutional right. Chief Justice Rehnquist agreed that “prosecutors’ peremptories are based on their ‘seat-of-the-pants instincts’ as to how particular jurors will vote”; instincts that Justice Thurgood Marshall warned “may often be just another term for racial prejudice.” Batson, 476 U.S. at 106, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (Marshall, J., concurring). As Justice OConnor described it,
“In both criminal and civil trials, the peremptory challenge is a mechanism for the exercise of private choice in the pursuit of fairness. The peremptory is, by design, an enclave of private action in a government-managed proceeding.”
Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 633-34, 111 S. Ct. 2077, 114 L. Ed. 2d 660 (1991) (OConnor, J., dissenting). That “private choice” may just as certainly be based upon the color of a jurors skin when it is the product of a “seat-of-the-pants” judgment call as when it is the product of a deliberate thought process. In either case, and in the absence of an admission to racial discrimination by the prosecutor, proof that the states race-neutral explanation is pretextual is a matter of “circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive.” Miller-El, 545 U.S. at 241, 125 S.Ct. 2317 (quoting Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 147, 120 S. Ct. 2097, 147 L. Ed. 2d 105 (2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In fact, circumstantial evidence that is probative of the lawyers intent may well be the best evidence of the lawyers purpose that we have.
By the time the trial court was considering defendants Batson objection to the states peremptory strike against juror number 9, juror number 6—the only other black juror on the panel—had been excused at the states request. And although the state articulated legitimate, race-neutral reasons for striking juror number 9, those reasons were not “plausible” because there were other non-black jurors that the state did not seek to strike who gave the same answers that the state relied on to strike juror number 9. And under Miller-El, it is the plausibility of the states reasons that provides insight into whether those reasons are a pretext for race. This case is like Curry, where we engaged in a comparative-juror analysis and concluded that the states stated reasons for using a peremptory challenge against the only black juror on the panel were a pretext for race because the state did not also seek to strike similarly situated jurors who were not black. As we have already described, there were non-black jurors who provided the same answers that the state offered as reasons to excuse juror number 9. That was true of juror number 6 as well. The plausibility of the states race-neutral reasons for excusing an otherwise qualified black juror decreased with the second strike. That implausibility is evidence of purposeful discrimination which, in light of “all of the circumstances that bear on racial animosity,” leads us to the conclusion that the trial court clearly erred in excusing jurors number 6 and number 9 from the trial jury.
Reversed and remanded.
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
FOOTNOTES
1
. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part:“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed[.]”Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution similarly provides:“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to public trial by an impartial jury in the county in which the offense shall have been committed[.]”
2
. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in relevant part:“No State shall *** deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
3
. The comparative juror analysis is a tool to identify pretext through circumstantial evidence of differential treatment. When a Black juror gives the same answers as a non-black juror but is struck for those answers, then it gives rise to the inference of pretext because similarly situated persons have been treated differently. But it is important to remember that the analysis is just a tool and, even more importantly, that it does not stand for the proposition that striking a Black juror who answers questions differently from non-black jurors necessarily is a race-neutral strike. Indeed, striking a Black juror for answers that differ from those of non-black jurors could, itself, be evidence that the strike is based on race. Here, defendant does not argue that any of the reasons given by the state were not race-neutral.
MOONEY, P. J.