indicate a pattern of striking blacks from the venire, the fact that the jury has a higher percentage of blacks than the venire had does not mean that no prima facie case of discrimination has been made. OPINION WITHDRAWN; OPINION SUBSTITUTED; REVERSED AND REMANDED; AND APPLICATION OVERRULED. HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, KENNEDY, INGRAM and COOK, JJ., concur. HOUSTON, J., concurs in the result. MADDOX, J., who did not participate in the original decision, dissents from the denial of the State’s application for reheating. 1 . We have held, since the release of Harrell I, that a defendant can establish a prima facie case solely on the fact that a prosecutor used a large number of his peremptory challenges to strike black veniremembers. See Ex parte Williams, 571 So.2d 987, 990 (Ala. 1990) (<HOLDING>). 2 . 380 U.S. 202, 85 S.Ct. 824, 13 L.Ed.2d
holding that a prima facie case of discrimination is not established merely by the number of peremptory strikes against blacks in cases where the percentage of blacks on the empaneled jury is higher than the percentage of the venire pool holding that the prosecutors use of four of his five peremptory strikes to remove blacks was sufficient to establish a prima facie case holding to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination a plaintiff must show he 1 holding that without more the mere fact that the prosecutor used a high number of strikes to remove women from the venire is insufficient to establish a prima facie case holding that close temporal proximity is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of retaliation