approximately six months after Essie’s trial, the United States Supreme Court, in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991), extended the Batson rule to civil cases. The basis of the extension is that private litigants exercising peremptory challenges are involved in state action, thus implicating the Fourteenth Amendment. Having protected the record at trial, Essie on this direct appeal contends that the Edmonson decision should be retroactively applied. Such an application would require that the trial court reconsider the matter to 08, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) (retroactive application of newly declared constitutional rules to criminal cases pending on direct appeal); Allen v. Hardy, 478 U.S. 255, 106 S.Ct. 2878, 92 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986) (<HOLDING>); Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97, 92
holding the batson rule was not to be applied retroactively to a state conviction on federal habeas review holding that batson v kentucky does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review holding generally that new rules of law should not be applied retroactively in habeas corpus cases holding that aedpa is not applied retroactively to pending habeas petitions holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review