it could not say that the trial court “unreasonably applied” Batson where the trial court found no prima facie case where prosecutor struck seven of ten African-American jurors); Windham v. Merkle, 163 F.3d 1092, 1099 (9th Cir.1998) (affirming district court's finding that defendant failed to establish pri-ma facie case under Batson because, inter alia, three African American jurors were empaneled); Jamison v. Duncan, 2002 WL 31000000, at *2-5 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (finding no pattern of racial discrimination where prosecutor struck three out of six African-American jurors and noting that petitioner’s Batson claim was "belied by the fact that [60%] of the African-American venirepersons from the second round emerged as jurors * * * "); Owens v. Portuondo, 1999 WL 378343, at *13 (S.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>), aff'd on other grounds, 205 F.3d 1324 (2d
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 that defendants batson claim was strongly discounted by the fact that three africanamerican jurors were sworn in holding that it was impermissible for the trial court to balance the number of africanamerican and jewish jurors in a raciallycharged case holding batson challenge untimely because objection made after all jurors were sworn