☢ test - Í

Roberts v. State, 278 Ga. 541, 604 S.E.2d 500 (October 25, 2004). Acceptable race-neutral strikes: “The struck juror stated that he was standing in line at a water fountain, and a Caucasian juror took a drink of water, saw the African- American juror behind him, and turned around and spit the water back into the fountain. The struck juror reported the incident to a bailiff because he believed that it showed that the Caucasian juror might be racially biased. The prosecutor stated that, as no issue of race had been introduced in voir dire, the juror’s perceptions of the incident and decision to report it indicated an undue attention to issues of race, and that the prosecutor would have struck any potential juror who reported such an incident, regardless of that juror’s race.” Lopez v. State, 267 Ga.App. 178, 598 S.E.2d 898 (April 23, 2004). No Batson challenge where juror was not herself Hispanic, but was married to an Hispanic. 25. STRIKES BASED ON RELATIONSHIP WITH PARTIES/WITNESSES/ATTORNEYS IN THE CASE Ford v. State, 298 Ga. 560, 783 S.E.2d 906 (March 7, 2016). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly denied defense Batson challenge where State struck juror who knew, and attended same church as, defense counsel. Washington v. State, 310 Ga.App. 775, 714 S.E.2d 364 (July 13, 2011). State’s strike was race neutral. State struck a potential juror who was “distantly related to one of the defendants and had remarked that he ‘didn’t have to say anything’ about his relationship [to the defendant].” In addition to his comment and his ambiguous relation to the defendant, the juror was also struck because of his personal criminal history, and because of his wife’s occupation as a social worker. Allen v. State, 299 Ga.App. 201, 683 S.E.2d 343 (July 15, 2009). Strikes were race neutral: “As to the second and sixth jurors, the State explained that they both had spent time with Allen personally and knew some of his family. See Bass v. State, 271 Ga.App. 228, 232(4), 609 S.E.2d 386 (2005) (a prospective juror's knowledge of the defendant and his family is a legitimate explanation for a peremptory strike). As to the third juror, the State noted that not only did this juror know Allen and Allen's sister, but he knew a prosecution witness and was also unemployed. See Overton v. State , 295 Ga.App. 223, 240(9), 671 S.E.2d 507 (2008) (‘[a] juror knowing a witness is also a race-neutral reason for exercising a peremptory challenge’); Ware v. State, 258 Ga.App. 706, 708(2), 574 S.E.2d 898 (2002) (‘the [ S]tate may strike a prospective juror because of [his] lack of employment’). Blackshear v. State, 285 Ga. 619, 680 S.E.2d 850 (June 29, 2009). State’s strikes were race-neutral. The prosecutor proffered that he struck two other prospective jurors because they knew ‘just about everyone in the case’ and one was seen talking in the hall to the mother of a co-defendant while the other had a previous aggravated assault charge. See Curles v. State, 276 Ga. 237(5) (575 S.E.2d 891) (2003) (juror's acquaintance with witness is race-neutral reason for peremptory challenge). Accord, Franklin v. State , 305 Ga.App. 574, 699 S.E.2d 868 (August 12, 2010) (jurors knew either defendant or the confidential informant). LeMon v. State, 290 Ga.App. 527, 660 S.E.2d 11 (March 3, 2008). Strikes were race-neutral: “The prosecuting attorney testified that he struck the first prospective juror because she had children and grandchildren close in age to LeMon and because her responses to questions in voir dire suggested that she was biased toward him. Roberts v. State, 282 Ga. 548, 651 S.E.2d 689 (October 9, 2007). Race-neutral reason: “the juror’s acquaintance with a witness.” Jackson v. State, 288 Ga.App. 339, 654 S.E.2d 137 (October 3, 2007). No Batson violation: Prosecutor struck juror because she had the same last name as defendant . Although nothing in voir dire suggested she was related to defendant, prosecutor explained strike: “I’ve had some cases tried in the past, I don’t know if this Court has been involved with them, where we go home, a juror comes back, and she finds out she's related to or kin to the defendant or one of the witnesses in this case. Ms. Jackson has the same name as the defendant. She’s of the same race as the defendant, and because there is a speedy trial, we only have one alternate juror, we don't know what happens.” “The prosecutor’s concern that prospective juror number 27 may have been related to the defendant was a neutral, legitimate reason for striking that juror. Cf. id. at 400-402(2) (striking prospective juror who was related to another defendant being prosecuted by the state); Pless v. State, 247 Ga.App. 786, 788(3) (545 S.E.2d 340) (2001) (striking a prospective juror who had the same last name as a different defendant awaiting trial on the same day); Hightower v. State, 220 Ga.App. 165, 166(1) (469 S.E.2d 295) (1996) (striking