Accordingly, after looking at all the information put forth by the Petitioner, and the lack of any other history of discrimination or disci’iminatory statement by the government, the Petitioner is unable to make out a prima facie case of racial discrimination. b. The Government’s Race-Neutral Reasons for the Strikes and the Petitioner’s Response Even though the Petitioner has failed to carry his burden of making a prima facie case, the court recognizes that the government has provided race-neutral reasons for its strikes. The government asserts that the seven African American potential jurors who were struck answered on their questionnaires that they were either opposed to the death penalty or both generally opposed and generally in favor of it. Resp. at 148; see Keel, 162 F.3d at 271 (<HOLDING>). The Petitioner argues that two non-African
holding that there was no batson claim even when the prosecution used nearly seventy percent 70 of its peremptory strikes to remove potential african american jurors holding racebased use of peremptory strikes against jurors unconstitutional holding that peremptory strikes did not violate batson when given these jurors opposition to or hesitation toward imposing the death penalty it is clear that the prosecutor acted well within constitutional bounds in excusing them holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty holding that the constitutional right to be present is satisfied so long as the defendant is given an opportunity to register his opinions with counsel after juror questioning and is present when the exercise of strikes is given formal effect even if the defendant is not present when his lawyer actually exercises the peremptory challenges