came before the Beaumont Court of Appeals twice. The first appeal exclusively concerned the jury selection. In an unpublished opinion, the court of appeals ordered the trial court to hold a hearing to determine whether the plaintiffs exercised their strikes in a race-neutral manner. 6 . In Davis, the prosecutor in an aggravated robbery case used a peremptory strike to remove a venire member from the panel because he was a Jehovah’s Witness. State v. Davis, 504 N.W.2d 767, 768 (Minn.1993), cert. denied,-U.S.-, 114 L.Ed.2d 91 (1988); United States v. Di Pasquale, 864 F.2d 271, 277 (3d Cir.1988) (stating additionally that Italian surnames do not prove ethnicity), cert, denied sub nom. DiNorscio v. United States, 492 U.S. 906, 109 S.Ct. 3216, 106 L.Ed.2d 566 (1989); Sgro, 816 F.2d at 33 (<HOLDING>). 9 . See United States v. Sneed, 34 F.3d 1570,
holding that government informants are not members of a particular social group holding that a plaintiff in a reverse discrimination case need show only that he is a member of a protected group and whites are a protected group under title vii holding that plaintiffs statistics did not shed any light on the legally relevant issue because they did not indicate the group of applicants who were interviewed or even the group of applicants found qualified or the group of all applicants holding that the defendant did not prove that italianamericans are a cognizable group holding that residents of a geograph ic area are not a distinct cognizable group and citing united states v test which made clear that a geographic area is not a distinct group for support