basis, just as the defense, by observing the demeanor of members, may perceive a member to be glaring at the accused or at counsel and feel uncomfortable with that member’s demeanor. The Government is similarly entitled to excuse a member. Defense, any peremptory challenge? At the outset I acknowledge that these issues arise from the lower court’s attempt to deal with a difficult and complex issue — what the military judge must do when there is a factual dispute relating to the race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge governed by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). This issue implicates the fundamental concern of how to prevent use of a subterfuge race-neutral explanation. See Ford v. Norris, 67 F.3d 162, 168 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Bennett v. Collins, 852 F.Supp. 570, 578-85
holding raceneutral basis for preemptory challenge was pretext where stated reasons for challenge not supported by venirepersons statements holding prebatson that challenge to africanamericans who had limited education was raceneutral holding that pretext may be established by proving that prosecutors used their peremptory challenges to exclude africanamerican venirepersons for a given reason or reasons but then failed to apply the same reason or reasons to exclude similarly situated white venirepersons holding that when a plaintiff proves the defendants stated reasons for hiring someone else were pretext for offering the position to a personal friend and not a pretext for racial discrimination she does not establish triable issues of fact holding lack of factual basis for preemptory challenge renders avowed reason for challenge a pretext