is invoked only to eliminate African-American prospective jurors and not others who also have that characteristic.”); Turner, 121 F.3d at 1251-52 (“A comparative analysis of jurors struck and those remaining is a well-established tool for exploring the possibility that facially race-neutral reasons are a pretext for discrimination.”). The comparison between McGuire and Reed is strongly suggestive of the State’s race-based use of its peremptory challenges. See, e.g., McClain, 217 F.3d at 1224 (concluding that Batson was violated where two of six proffered race-neutral explanations were “pretextual based upon comparisons of voir dire responses by non-black jurors who were seated without objection by the prosecutor,” and other four were contrary to the facts); Turner, 121 F.3d at 1253-54 (<HOLDING>); Devose v. Norris, 53 F.3d 201, 205 (8th
holding that the district courts finding of no discrimination was not clearly erroneous because the finding was supported by the record holding that the trial court erred in giving jury instructions that offered alternative theories of murder holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in striking fact statements that did not comply with the local rules holding that the district court clearly erred in finding that prosecutor did not discriminate in jury selection where sole justification offered for striking a black juror applied equally to nonstricken white juror holding that the finding of intent to discriminate is a factual determination subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review