With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that, upon a proper objection, “the trial judge must conduct a Neil inquiry,” and “that the proper remedy in all cases where the trial court errs in failing to hold a Neil inquiry is to reverse and remand for a new trial.” Id. at 1322. A rule mandating reversal whenever the trial court fails to require the party exercising the challenge to articulate a race or gender-neutral reason in response to a sufficient objection has some appeal, given the fact that, in Melbourne, the court stated that the trial court’s task is to determine the “genuineness” of the reason for the challenge, 679 So.2d at 764; and it is difficult to discern precisely how one would go about determining the genuineness of a reason that was never given. But see Plaza v. State, 699 So.2d 289, 290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (<HOLDING>), review dismissed, 717 So.2d 58 (Fla.1998).

A: holding that it is impermissible to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a potential juror based on race
B: holding that if a race or genderneutral reason for a peremptory challenge is apparent from the record the trial court may deny an objection to the challenge without requiring the party exercising the challenge to articulate a race or genderneutral reason
C: holding that where the defense peremptorily challenged a prospective juror and the prosecutor merely stated that she would challenge that strike the states objection was sufficient to allow inquiry into whether the juror was being challenged for nonracial reasons where the trial court clearly understood that the objection was that the challenge had been exercised because of the prospective jurors race
D: 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
B.