and based on racial considerations”). The prosecutor also claimed that Juror 016’s youth was “important” because of her “lack of ties in the community,” stating, “I think I tied that into a lack of ties in the community with both [Juror 016 and Juror 019]; that was one factor that I considered, that is, the manner in which I stated that they could — that their youth was important.” Not only is the prosecutor’s statement that Juror 016 had a “lack of ties in the community” not sufficiently “clear and reasonably specific,” Batson, 476 U.S. at 98 n. 20, 106 S.Ct. 1712, but it is also not supported by the record and does not appear to have any relation to Juror 016’s ability to serve as a juror in a criminal trial involving possession of crack cocaine. See id. at 88, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted); McClain,
holding that the prosecutors exercise of peremptory challenges must be related to his view concerning the outcome holding plaintiff must be closely related to victim holding that a petitioner must show  that the outcome of his appeal would have been different had counsel raised the issue holding that for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim to be established a defendant must show that but for counsels error the outcome of his proceedings would have been different holding that state prosecutors agreements with defendant not binding on federal prosecutors