With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". amongst the first twenty positions, and would almost certainly have been questioned during jury selection. The African-American venire members were in positions 2, 4, 20, 82, and 98. Before any questioning of the venire panel, the prosecution requested a jury shuffle. This procedure results in a random reshuffling of the panel members’ positions. See Tex.Code Crim. PROC. art. 35.11. After the jury shuffle, the African-American venire members were in positions 64, 68, 76, 87, and 90. Blan-ton’s trial counsel raised no objection at the time of the shuffle. Later, when the prosecution exercised a peremptory strike of African-American ve-nire member Michelle Johnson, Blanton’s trial counsel objected based on Batson v. Kentucky. See 476 U.S. 79, 89, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986) (<HOLDING>). The prosecutor responded with a race-neutral

A: holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause
B: recognizing that potential jurors as well as litigants have a right based in the equal protection clause to nondiscriminatory jury selection procedures
C: holding that the equal protection clause forbids prosecutors from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race
D: holding that a criminal defendant can bring a third party challenge to the peremptory striking of jurors based on race whether or not he is of the same race as the jurors who are struck
C.