With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". a new trial. We have been unable to find any prior decisions that are directly on point. However, State v. Johans, 613 So.2d 1319 (Fla.1993), would appear to support appellants’ argument. In Johans, the trial court had failed to require the state to give a race-neutral reason for an objected-to challenge of a prospective juror. The supreme court said that “[a] race-neutral justification for a peremptory challenge cannot be inferred merely from circumstances.... The burden imposed on the party required to provide a race-neutral justification is, at worst, minimal.” Id. at 1321. It then a rule would also help to ensure that the constitutional rights of prospective jurors are respected. See J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 128, 140-42, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Abshire v. State, 642 So.2d 542, 544 n. 7

A: holding that the equal protection clause forbids prosecutors from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race
B: recognizing that potential jurors as well as litigants have a right based in the equal protection clause to nondiscriminatory jury selection procedures
C: recognizing harassment claim under equal protection clause based on sexual orientation
D: holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause
B.