mandamus action against respondent predicated upon the conduct which is the subject of the instant petition in the Second Court of Appeals. The Second Court of Appeals stayed the proceeding, ordered pleadings filed and set a hearing. However, a week prior to the hearing, it withdrew its order as improvidently granted and dismissed the relator’s petition and vacated the stay. This application was then filed. Relator contends that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling respondent to vacate his order reinstating the jurors on the jury because respondent violated his legal duty under Article 35.261. Relator argues that once a Batson motion is sustained it is mandatory pursuant to Article 35.261 that respondent dismiss the ar , — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1993) (<HOLDING>). Batson and its,progeny recognized that Batson
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 although opponent of a peremptory challenge is not required to offer proof to establish purposeful discrimination failure to do so may impact on whether the party has carried its burden of persuasion to show purposeful discrimination 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 batson applies to a prosecutors use of peremptory challenges regardless of whether the stricken juror is of the same race as the defendant holding that a violation of  1981 requires purposeful race discrimination