Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): March 28, 2017). In this case, the State’s explanation for the strike cited a race-neutral observable fact and did not express a belief or assumption about members of the juror’s race or even a subgroup of that race. See generally State v. Weaver, 912 SW2d 499, 509 (I) (Mo. 1995) (no Batson violation where prosecutor’s decision to strike was not based upon assumptions about members of the juror’s minority group). Compare State v. Jensen, 76 P3d 188, 193 (II) (Utah App. 2003) (explanation for strike not gender-neutral where prosecutor assumed that men involved in a protective order “would be on the defendant’s side, since more likely than not men are the respondents to protective orders, rather than women”) (punctuation omitted); State v. Lucas, 18 P3d 160, 162-163 (Ariz.App. 2001) (<HOLDING>) (citation and punctuation omitted). I 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that a court may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record (B) holding that while the plaintiffs job responsibilities included assisting patients who received epidurals her regular work routine did not require lifting the legs of women weighing 263 pounds who had received epidurals (C) holding explanation that southern men take a negative view of pregnant women who work wrongfully excludes a subgroup of one gender from participation in the judicial process and reinforces prejudicial views of the relative abilities of men and women (D) holding that the existence of prior convictions are typically matters of public record of which the trial court can take judicial notice without violating the defendants right to due process (E) recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket
Output (English): recognizing that the court may take judicial notice of its own docket