that the government properly struck the juror because she previously had served on a hung jury and she had expressed concerns about how fairly the defendant in that case had been treated. The district court’s determination on discriminatory intent represents a “finding of fact entitled to deference.” United States v. Steele, 298 F.3d 906, 910 (9th Cir. 2002).. Service on a hung jury represents a legitimate reason to exercise a peremptory strike. See United States v. Changco, 1 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 1993) (an “inability to relate to other jurors” is a valid, race-neutral reason for excluding a prospective juror). Hesitation regarding the fairness of criminal proceedings also provides a proper basis for a peremptory strike. See Briggs v. Grounds, 682 F.3d 1165, 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>). Further, concern about a juror’s feelings
holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant recognizing that the burden to establish a valid waiver of a constitutional right is upon the prosecution holding the prosecution to a higher burden of proof than the law required is a valid raceneutral reason for excluding a juror holding that the failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof required a new trial holding that age is an acceptable raceneutral reason for striking a prospective juror