but guilty of resisting arrest without violence. We reverse because the trial court committed reversible error in failing to conduct a Neil inquiry regarding the Campos peremptory strike. Under Melbourne v. State, 679 So.2d 759, 764 (Fla.1996)(footnotes omitted), the defense properly put the Campos strike at issue: A party objecting to the other side’s use of a peremptory challenge on racial grounds must: a) make a timely objection on that basis, b) show that the venireperson is a member of a distinct racial group, and c) request that the court ask the striking party its reason for the strike. If these initial requirements are met (step 1), the court must ask the proponent of the strike to explain the reason for the strike. See also State v. Johans, 618 So.2d 1319, 1321 (Fla.1993) (<HOLDING>). As Melbourne notes, a “simple objection and
holding that courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigants racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that from this time forward a neil inquiry is required when an objection is raised that a peremptory challenge is being used in a racially discriminatory manner holding that is not the fact that a jury is all white or all black that violates batson rather it is the racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges to strike jurors