775 S.W.2d 924 (1989); and Lee v. Butler, Ky.App., 605 S.W.2d 20 (1979). Furthermore, a trial court has the power to control the course of litigation, including control of the amount of evidence produced on a particular point. Woods v. Commonwealth, Ky., 305 S.W.2d 935 (1957), and Johnson v. May, 307 Ky. 399, 211 S.W.2d 135 (1948). The overall fairness of a trial is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. We find no error. We turn now to Essie’s contention that Goodman’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude black jurors was impermissible. Following voir dire, but before the parties actually exercised their peremptory challenges, Essie requested the trial court to apply to jury selection the rule of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The trial court denied application of the
holding that once prosecutor makes raceneutral explanation for peremptory challenge and trial court rules on question of intentional discrimination issue of prima facie case becomes moot holding that the fourteenth amendment precludes peremptory challenges predicated upon race and that once a defendant in a criminal case makes a prima facie showing of discrimi nation the burden shifts to the prosecution to demonstrate a neutral explanation for the challenges holding that once the employee makes its prima facie showing the burden then shifts to the employer to prove that legitimate reasons supported the termination holding that the constitution prohibits a criminal defendant from engaging in purposeful discrimination on the ground of race in the exercise of peremptory challenges holding that genderbased peremptory challenges also violate the fourteenth amendment