any peremptory strikes. This procedure was followed precisely during the selection process. It is clearly evident from the record that Robinson was tendered jurors: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,12,13, 14,15, and 18, a total of twelve from which to exercise his peremptory strikes in the first round of jury selection. We see no need to address this issue further, it is without merit. III. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO REQUIRE THE STATE TO GIVE NON RACIAL REASONS FOR CHALLENGING JURORS ¶ 8. Robinson maintains that the trial court erred in failing to require the State to provide non racial reasons for the use of peremptory strikes against three jurors. In support of Robinson’s contention, he cites to Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete, Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) (<HOLDING>) and Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct.
holding rule applicable to witness holding batson criteria applicable to private litigation in a civil case holding that the penalty is applicable recognizing that civil rights lawsuits are private only in form holding that tennessee rule of civil procedure 24 is not applicable to proceedings in juvenile court