With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". doors. Reddock fled from the house as police were arriving. 9 . At the time, Boyd’s co-defendants included appellant Walker and Owens. 10 . Boyd’s additional argument, that he was entitled to a separate trial because of Easter-ling's and Travis's testimony that they knew Boyd from selling drugs, has no merit. This could have come in even in a separate trial. For example, the testimony that Easterling blurted — that he and Boyd "used to hustle together” — came in as the prosecutor was asking questions designed to elicit that “a person who actually knew [Easterling] [and presumably knew that Easterling sometimes had large sums of cash] was Brian Boyd.” 11 . At that point, the defense had stricken seven white jurors. 12 . See also Robinson v. United States, 878 A.2d 1273, 1277 (D.C.2005) (<HOLDING>). 13 . The court did not make a finding about

A: holding that a violation of  1981 requires purposeful race discrimination
B: holding that reasons for excusing black jurors that were objectively contradicted by the record provided evidence of purposeful discrimination
C: 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
D: holding that tire purposeful exclusion of prospective jurors because they are black and female is discrimination on account of both race and gender in direct violation of batson
D.