With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by the fact that her brother had a drug problem or had been charged with a crime. As to the former rationale, other white jurors had made the same claim and had not been excused; as to the latter, it is not clear from the record that it was this particular juror who stated that her brother had been arrested. The trial court overruled the objection. The Melbourne decision charged the courts with the duty to insure that race-based peremptory challenges do not render the jury selection process fundamentally unfair. The penalty for such an improper peremptory challenge is a new trial. In this case, however, the incomplete, unreconstructed, and unavailable record has impeded this court from the exercise of this important duty. Compare Rozier v. State, 669 So.2d 358 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (<HOLDING>), with Velez v. State, 645 So.2d 42 (Fla. 4th

A: holding that missing portions of transcript of voir dire did not entitle the defendant to a new trial for murder because the alleged errors in jury selection were harmless as a matter of law
B: holding that when the purpose of the request is to compare the testimony of jurors but no such comparison was made at the trial level a court need not provide a free voir dire transcript
C: holding that trial minutes were not sufficient substitute for transcript of voir dire and could not afford meaningful review when both sides exercised peremptory challenges
D: holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
C.