With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". basis, just as the defense, by observing the demeanor of members, may perceive a member to be glaring at the accused or at counsel and feel uncomfortable with that member’s demeanor. The Government is similarly entitled to excuse a member. Defense, any peremptory challenge? At the outset I acknowledge that these issues arise from the lower court’s attempt to deal with a difficult and complex issue — what the military judge must do when there is a factual dispute relating to the race-neutral explanation for the exercise of a peremptory challenge governed by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986). This issue implicates the fundamental concern of how to prevent use of a subterfuge race-neutral explanation. See Ford v. Norris, 67 F.3d 162, 168 (8th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Bennett v. Collins, 852 F.Supp. 570, 578-85

A: holding prebatson that challenge to africanamericans who had limited education was raceneutral
B: holding raceneutral basis for preemptory challenge was pretext where stated reasons for challenge not supported by venirepersons statements
C: holding that pretext may be established by proving that prosecutors used their peremptory challenges to exclude africanamerican venirepersons for a given reason or reasons but then failed to apply the same reason or reasons to exclude similarly situated white venirepersons
D: holding that when a plaintiff proves the defendants stated reasons for hiring someone else were pretext for offering the position to a personal friend and not a pretext for racial discrimination she does not establish triable issues of fact
B.