and bégin with a new panel. Relator further contends that respondent’s order was violative of another mandatory statute, Article 35.15(c), because reinstating the stricken veniremembers on the jury denied the State its minimum number of peremptory strikes. Finally, relator contends that the State may not be limited to any less than the three peremptory strikes allowed by law under any circumstances. MANDAMUS In order to be entitled to the extraordinary relief of mandamus, the relator must establish two essential requirements: (1) that the act sought to be compelled is ministerial as opposed to discretionary and (2) no other adequate remedy at law is available. Steames v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216, 219 (Tex.Cr.App.1989). The pri Co., 500 U.S. 614, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) (<HOLDING>), and to criminal defendants, Georgia v.
holding that racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges violates the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment 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 holding that courts must entertain a challenge to a private litigants racially discriminatory use of peremptory challenges in a civil trial holding that private litigants in civil cases may not use peremptory challenges in a discriminatory manner holding that peremptory challenges may not be exercised in a discriminatory manner