The trial court, in the case at bar, never evaluated, pursuant to the third step set forth in Batson , the genuineness or persuasiveness of the State's proffered reason. The trial court merely accepted the State's reason because it found that the reason was not based on race. The process does not demand an explanation which is persuasive or even plausible. At this time of the inquiry the issue is the facial validity of the prosecutor's explanation. Unless a discriminatory intent is inherent in the prosecutor's explanation, the reason offered will be deemed race neutral .
Court finds no error in the manner of jury selection.
The trial court's comments demonstrate that it only completed the second step evaluation pursuant to Batson . Although the trial court stated it was conducting the third-step analysis, it is clear that the court did not in fact conduct the third step. The record shows that the State gave no other explanation for its excusal of Lee, nor did the trial court make any additional inquiry. Also, while the State, during oral argument before this court, did not agree that the Defender was a mainstream newspaper, at the time defendant objected and argued to the trial court that the Defender was a mainstream newspaper, the State remained silent. This silence could reasonably be viewed as an admission by the State that it agreed that the Defender was a mainstream publication and, therefore, was like any other mainstream newspaper or publication.