With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 5 . More than that, Defendant makes only a three-sentence reference to this particular juror in the argument section of his brief. Also, he provides no case law to support his position in relation to venireman 39. This alone would constitute a waiver of his gender-Baf-son claim as to this potential juror. State v. Nicklasson, 967 S.W.2d 596, 618[67] (Mo. banc 1998). 6 . Even assuming, arguendo, that the issue was preserved, we still deny this prong of Defendant's point. The issue in a Batson challenge "is not whether the reason given for a strike is true in fact, but whether the striking party believes it to be true, even if only a hunch, and the strike is not inherently racial on its face.” Bass, 81 S.W.3d at 611 [14]; see also State v. Smith, 944 S.W.2d 901, 912-13[12] (Mo.banc 1997) (<HOLDING>). Health problems, inattentiveness, and

A: holding that the district courts observation that a challenge for cause might have been justified as to this juror was more than sufficient under batson which emphasized that the prosecutors explanation need not rise to the level justifying exercise of a challenge for cause quoting batson 476 us at 97 106 sct 1712
B: holding that it is impermissible to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror based on race
C: recognizing that one purpose of batson is to address the right of a juror not to be excluded from serving on a jury for racial reasons
D: holding belief of prosecutor that potential juror might know crucial witnesses was sufficient explanation to defeat batson challenge
D.