claim be raised not only before trial, but in the period between the selection of the jurors and the administration of their oaths, is a sensible rule.”). We also note that the fact that the rule we adopt is widely followed by other jurisdictions — both federal and state — that have considered this issue. See, e.g., Morning v. Zapata Protein (USA), Inc., 128 F.3d 213, 216 (4th Cir.1997) (noting that most of the federal circuits have taken the cue from Ford and “requir[ed] Batson challenges to be raised, at the latest, before the venire is excused”); McCrory, 82 F.3d at 1247 (“The Court’s discussion in Batson, however, makes clear that it envisioned an objection raised during the jury selection process.” (emphasis added)); State v. Ford, 2001 MT 230, ¶ 30, 306 Mont. 517, 39 P.3d 108 (<HOLDING>). We are aware of no case in any jurisdiction,
holding that a batson challenge is not timely if the jury has been sworn and the venire dismissed and observing that sjeveral jurisdictions have closely analyzed batsons language and concluded that the us supreme court envisioned that a batson challenge must be made before the jury is sworn while citing numerous state decisions barring batson objections after the jury is sworn and the venire is dismissed holding that while batson claim was waived derivative claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the batson claim is cognizable under the pcra holding batson challenge untimely because objection made after all jurors were sworn holding that defendants batson claim was strongly discounted by the fact that three africanamerican jurors were sworn in holding batson claim untimely because it was not made before the jury or the last juror including the alternates is sworn but remanding for new trial in interests of justice