bizarre was Mr Rodrigo Rodriquez and Mr Ramon Fuentes, JR. Mr Rodriquez has abrother who was convicted and sentenced to 10 years for aggravated sexualassault. Mr Rodriquez went o to not only serve on the jury but also became the jury's Forman which is the speaker/leader of the jury. Mr Fuentes also had abrother who was charged in a shooting and rape of his landlord. The state wenton to accept him on the jury, but the defense struck him. Both of these caseswere in Texas and handled by the Bexar County Prosecutors office, which is thesame office that handled my case. The third juror that was racially struck was Ms Paulette Childress-Bell. Ms Bellstated she could assess the Death Penalty if the evidence proved the case. Shealso said that her husband and son have been stopped by the police, and feltthat they were racially profiled, A common occurrence on the side of town we arefrom. The state went on to strike Ms Bell, their reasons being "Her husband andson as Black Men felt they were subjects of racial profiling. The state stated 3more reasons after this one that were race neutral, but the damage was donewith the first. When the defense asked the judge to step in due to racialprejudice on the basis that the first reason was purely racist, the judge'sresponse was "Yeah it was, but the others weren't" He agreed and did nothingabout it. All 3 of those instances was challenged legally under Batson VKentucky which is a challenge that weights if the prosecutors motives were racebased or not. Being that the reasons the prosecutor gave to strike these threeBlack panellists, came up numerous times with other Non-Black panellist, therewas only one way to justify a Race-Neutral reason, to strike all jurors that havethe same issues, no matter Race or gender. These 3 women are from the same side of town that I grew up on and know theeveryday occurrences of violence and racial profiling. These women also havekids, nieces, and nephews that are subjected to these occurrences, so theyunderstand what type of life Ive been through. These women are the "Peers"that's supposed to make up a Jury.During the Guilt/innocence phase of trial, the state prosecutor presented the jurywith 2 eyewitnesses and a video tape of the murder. The first witness MrsHelton happened to be sitting in the parking lot, directly in front of theentrance/exit of the convenience store, in her car scratching lotto tickets. In herpolice report, taken 45 minutes after the murder, Mrs Helton says she heard oneshot and an alarm go off. She then seen a man walk out of the store and lookinside her car. She said she made eye contact with the man until he got into aRed car and drove off. Police asked Mrs Helton if she can identify the man if sheseen him again, she said "yes" minutes later, I was brought in for a one man lineup to see if Mrs Helton could identify me as the man that came out of the store.After several minutes of me turning left and right, and her looking me in theface. Mrs Helton said I was not the man that came out of the store. The second witness Mr Vasquez Jr. He was parked next to Mrs Helton during theshooting, Mr Vasquez said in his police report, which was taken at the same timeas Ms Helton's, that he also got a good look at the suspect. He went through thesame process of identification. Mr Vasquez said I was not the same man.During trial , 16 months later, both of these eyewitnesses got on stand and bothidentified me in the courtroom. Obviously since each witness is prepped beforetestimony, I was going to be identified. My attorneys never asked either witnesswhy 16 months after the crime I could be identified, but minutes after I couldn't.