was acceptable. This is true of the appellants other than Downing. Downing was given several opportunities to argue his point, and the trial court noted that this was being done for the sake of preservation. When Downing’s attorney replied that the panel was acceptable, the trial court interjected: “Subject to my ruling.” Downing’s attorney then asked “to be heard again on that. Just so the record is clear.” The record is, in fact, clear that Downing’s attorney and the trial court understood that Downing’s argument was preserved, and that his acquiescence to the jury as empaneled was not intended to waive his objection. Consequently, Downing has preserved the issue for our review. The other appellants, however, have not. See Gilchrist v. State, 340 Md. 606, 618, 667 A.2d 876 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106
holding that it is impermissible to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror based on race holding that a party waives complaint concerning unconstitutional exercise of peremptory challenge by stating without qualification that the jury is acceptable holding racebased use of peremptory strikes against jurors unconstitutional holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause holding that if a race or genderneutral reason for a peremptory challenge is apparent from the record the trial court may deny an objection to the challenge without requiring the party exercising the challenge to articulate a race or genderneutral reason