With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 757, 762 (7th Cir.1993). Again, we cannot say that the trial court erred in concluding that Howard failed to prove that the given reasons for striking these jurors were pretextual. Finally, Howard argues that the prosecutor’s comprehensive questioning of Gladys McElrath and his mischaracterization of Jeffrey Dunbar’s testimony demonstrate his discriminatory intent. We disagree. McEl-rath’s statements that she did not believe in capital punishment and “would go for life” legitimately prompted extensive questioning by the prosecutor, and the prosecutor’s observation that Dunbar had twice stated he could not vote for the death penalty was accurate. Moreover, Dunbar’s unique status as a recent high school graduate was a race-neutral reason for striking him. See Jackson, 983 F.2d at 762 (<HOLDING>). In sum, we hold that the trial court did not

A: holding that the criminal arrest history even of a jurors family members is a sufficiently raceneutral reason to satisfy the dictates of batson
B: holding that age is an acceptable raceneutral reason for striking a prospective juror
C: holding that where a nonblack juror with no prior jury experience was empaneled the proffered reason for striking a black juror for lack of jury experience was not genuine and therefore was pretextual
D: holding the prosecution to a higher burden of proof than the law required is a valid raceneutral reason for excluding a juror
B.