<p><b>PEOPLE v. STANLEY</b><b></b></p> <br /> <p><b> </b></p> <br /> <h4>Filed 8/24/06</h4> <br /> <p align="center"><b>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA</b></p> <br /> <p>THE PEOPLE, )</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Respondent, )</p> <br /> <p> ) S022224</p> <br /> <p> v. )</p> <br /> <p> ) Alameda County</p> <br /> <p>DARREN CORNELIUS STANLEY, ) Super. Ct. No. 103289</p> <br /> <p> )</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Appellant. )</p> <br /> <p><u> </u>)</p> <br /> <p><b>Continue from Part II ………</b></p> <br /> <p>We have examined the transcript of the voir dire of Tanjala S., as well as the transcript of the hearing on the <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">new trial motion</a> at which the prosecutor sought once again to explain her peremptory challenge. Although at the time the <i>Batson-Wheeler</i> motion was entertained both the court and the prosecutor, having quickly reviewed the daily transcript of her <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">voir dire</a>, could point to nothing reflecting her â€