OPINION BY
OLSON, J.:
Appellant, Derrick Edwards, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered on January 9, 2015. On appeal, Appellant raises several objections, including, inter alia, challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and allegations that the Commonwealth harbored racial animus in the use of its peremptory strikes. Although we hold that listing the races and genders of prospective jurors on a peremptory strike sheet, while ill-advised, does not per se violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 LiEd.2d 69 (1986), we conclude that, under the totality of circumstances, Appellant demonstrated a Batson violation by showing that the Commonwealth struck at least one juror with discriminatory intent. Accordingly, we vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.
The factual background of this ease ls as ' follows. At approximately 5:50 a.m. on September 18, 2012, Appellant and Rasheed Thomas (“Thomas”) robbed Keith Crawford (“Crawford”) at gunpoint. Approximately five minutes later, Appellant and Thomas approached Kevin Cunningham (“Cunningham”) as he waited at a bus stop. Appellant put a firearm in Cunningham’s face and said, “You know what this is.” When Cunningham did not lie down on the ground, Appellant pushed him to the ground and struck him twice in the back of the head with the firearm. Appellant and Thomas took Cunningham’s cash, a set of barber clippers, a Bible, an engagement ring, and a cellular telephone.
At approximately 2:00 a.m. on October 1, 2012, two African-American males approached Whitney Coates (“Coates”). One of the males pointed a firearm at her face and said “You know what it is.” Coates gave the assailants her cellular telephone. Approximately 30 minutes later, Appellant and Thomas attempted to- rob Donald Coke (“Coke”) at gunpoint. When 'Coke' resisted, Appellant shot him twice in the left arm. Appellant and Thomas then fled in an SUV driven by Henry Bayard (“Ba-yard”). The SUV belonged to Bayard’s mother.
Approximately 15 minutes later, Appellant and Bayard robbed Duquan Crump (“Crump”) at' gunpoint. They fled the scene with Crump’s wallet, cellular telephone, and watch. Approximately 15 minutes later, Appellant and Thomas robbed Shanice Jones (“Jones”) at gunpoint. They fled with Jones’ wallet and cellular telephone. Approximately 15 minutes later, two African-American males approached Hector De Jesus (“De Jesus”). One of the males pointed a firearm at him and ordered him to hand over his belongings. The assailants took $150.00, an iPod touch, a wallet, and a backpack containing clothes and a taser.
Approximately 45 minutes later, an African-American male exited a vehicle and pointed a firearm at Jonas Floyd (“Floyd”). Another African-American male then exited the vehicle. The assailants took Floyd’s tote bag, headphones, cellular telephone, wallet, keys, and United States currency. Shortly after this robbery, police located Appellant, Thomas, and Bayard inside the SUV that belonged to Bayard’s mother. In addition to the firearms used in the robberies, police recovered a significant amount of the goods stolen from the eight victims listed above.
The relevant procedural history of this case is as follows. On November 2, 2012, the police charged Appellant via eight criminal complaints with various offenses relating to the robberies described above. A preliminary hearing was held on February 26, 2013. At the conclusion of that hearing,; Appellant was held for court on all charges. On March 6, 2013, the Commonwealth., charged Appellant via eight criminal informations with essentially the. same crimes as those charged in the criminal, complaints.
On October 13 and 14, 2014, Appellant moved to quash the criminal informations. In those motions to quash, Appellant argued that the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing was insufficient to make out prima fade cases. against him. On October 27, 2014, the trial court denied the motions to quash.
Jury selection began on , October 28, 2014. Prior to jury selection, Appellant asked the trial court how it conducted voir dire. The trial court responded that it would ask prospective jurors questions and the attorneys would not be permitted to make inquiries. Appellant did not object to this 'procedure. The trial court’s staff placed the race and gender of each prospective juror on the juror strike sheet prior to handing the sheet to counsel. Appellant objected to this process and the trial- court overruled the objection. Once the parties exercised their- respective peremptory strikes, Appellant, pursuant to Batson, objected to the Commonwealth striking four prospective African-American jurors.1 The -trial court determined that the Commonwealth exercised its strikes in a non-prejudicial manner and overruled Appellant’s objection.
Appellant’s trial commenced on October 29, 2014,2 At trial, Thomas appeared as a witness for the prosecution but he refused to identify his co-conspirators. The Commonwealth, therefore, sought permission to read Thomas’ confession into the record. Appellant, objected and the trial .court overruled that objection. The Commonwealth also presented an audio recording of. Appellant from prison. Appellant objected to the admission of the recording and the trial court overruled that objection.
On November 4, -2014, the jury found Appellant guilty of eight - counts of robbery,3 eight counts of conspiracy to commit robbery,4 eight counts of carrying a firearm without a license,5 eight counts of carrying a firearm on the streets of Philadelphia,6 eight counts of possessing an instrument of crime,7 attempted murder,8 aggravated assault,9 and conspiracy to commit aggravated assault.10
Over six weeks later, on December 22, 2014, Appellant moved for a, mistrial. In that motion, based upon the statements of two American Sign Language interpreters present during jury deliberations, Appellant averred that jurors conducted research about the case during deliberations. The trial court denied the motion that same day. On January'9, 2015, the trial court sentenced Appellant to an aggregate term of 22 to 44 years’ imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.
On April 6, 2015, the trial court ordered Appellant to file a concise statement of errors complained of on appeal (“concise statement”). See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b). Appellant failed to file a timely concise statement and, on October 7, 2015, this Court remanded this case to the trial court to permit Appellant to file a nunc pro tunc concise statement. On October 28, 2015, Appellant filed his concise statement. On February 24, 2016, the trial court issued its Rule 1925(a) opinion. This case is now ripe for disposition.
Appellant raises several issues for our review, inter alia:11
1. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion in failing to issue a judgment of acquittal[?]
2. Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion in failing to quash the return of the magistrate’s transcript ... where the Commonwealth failed to present material witnesses at a preliminary hearing or supplement a devoid record prior to trial?
3.Did the trial court commit an error of law and/or abuse its discretion in denying Appellant’s Batson [] motion by denoting on its jury sheet the race and gender of each potential juror and allowing the prosecution to strike jurors on the basis of race? -
Appellant’s Brief at 5-6 (certain capitalization omitted).12
In his first issue-Appellant argues that the evidence presented at trial as to four of the robberies was insufficient. “The determination of whether sufficient evidence exists to support the verdict is a question of law; accordingly, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.” Commonwealth v. Johnson, — Pa. —, 160 A.3d 127, 136 (2017) (citation omitted). In assessing Appellant’s sufficiency challenge, we must determine “whether viewing all the evidence admitted at trial in the light most favorable to the [Commonwealth], there is sufficient' evidence to enable the fact-finder to find every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Grays, 167 A.3d 793, 806 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted). “[T]he facts and circumstances established by the Commonwealth need not preclude every possibility of innocence .... [T]he finder of fact while' passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence produced, is' free to believe all, part[,] or none of the evidence.” Commonwealth v. Waugaman, 167 A.3d 153, 155-156 (Pa. Super. 2017) (citation omitted).
Appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of crimes related to the Jones, Crump, and Crawford robberies because those three victims failed to appear and did not testify at trial. Appellant concedes, however, that the . property stolen from these three victims was found in the SUV occupied by Appellant, Thomas, and Bayard. See Appellant’s Brief at 20. Moreover, as noted above, Thomas’ confession was read to the jury at trial.13 See N.T., 10/28/14, at 28-77. In that confession, Thomas implicated Appellant in the robberies of Jones, Crump, and Crawford. Moreover, Appellant stipulated at trial that he did not possess a valid license to carry firearms at the time the robberies occurred. N.T., 11/3/14, at 40. Combined, this stipulation, Thomas’ confession, and the recovery of items taken during the robberies from the SUV occupied by Appellant constituted sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that Appellant committed those three robberies and offenses related to those incidents.
Appellant also argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of robbing Coke because Coke did not testify at trial. Once again, however, Thomas implicated Appellant in Coke’s robbery. Furthermore, Coke’s robbery followed the same modus operandi of the other robberies. See Commonwealth v. Cullen, 340 Pa.Super. 233, 489 A.2d 929, 936 (1985) (modus operandi of serial robber can be used to prove identity). Combined, the stipulation that Appellant did not possess a valid license to carry firearms, Thomas’ statement, and the similarity of the robberies in this case provided sufficient evidence to convict Appellant of robbing Coke and the related offenses.
In his second issue, Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions to quash because there was insufficient evidence presented at the preliminary hearing to hold him for trial. This issue is moot. “If events occur to eliminate the claim or controversy at any stage in the process, the [issue] becomes moot.” In re S.H., 71 A.3d 973, 976 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). Our Supreme Court has held that “once a defendant has gone to trial and has been found guilty of the crime or crimes charged, any defect in the preliminary hearing is rendered immaterial.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 623 Pa. 253, 82 A.3d 943, 984 (2013) (citation omitted). Accordingly, Appellant’s second issue is moot.
In his third issue, Appellant argues that the jury selection process in this case violated Batson. First, he contends that the trial court violated Batson as a matter of law by listing the races and genders of potential jurors on the peremptory strike sheet.14 Second, he argues that the Commonwealth violated Batson by striking four African-American members of the ve-nire. “A Batson claim presents mixed questions of law and fact.” Riley v. Taylor, 277 F.3d 261, 277 (3d Cir. 2001) (en banc). Therefore, our standard of review is whether the trial court’s legal conclusions are correct and whether its factual findings are clearly erroneous.
“In Batson, the [Supreme Court of the United States] held that a prosecutor’s challenge to potential jurors solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.” Commonwealth v. Reid, 627 Pa. 151, 99 A.3d 470, 484 (2014) (citation omitted). When a defendant makes a Batson challenge during jury selection:
First, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race; second, if the prima facie showing is made, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to articulate a race-neutral explanation for striking the juror(s) at issue; and third, the trial court must then make the ultimate determination of whether the defense has carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination,
Commonwealth v. Watkins, 630 Pa. 652, 108 A.3d 692, 708 (2014) (citation omitted).
Initially, we consider whether Appellant properly preserved his Batson claim for appellate review. Cf. Pa.R.A.P. 302(a) (“Issues not raised in the lower court are waived and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”). The Commonwealth argues that Appellant “waived this claim by failing to set forth the race of: all the impaneled jurors, all of the venireper-sons the Commonwealth struck, and all the venirepersons acceptable to the Commonwealth whom he struck.” Commonwealth’s Brief at 17-18, citing Commonwealth v. Thompson, 106 A.3d 742, 752 (Pa. Super. 2014); see Commonwealth v. Spence, 534 Pa. 233, 627 A.2d 1176, 1182 (1993).15 The Commonwealth fails to acknowledge, how-’ ever, that this information was included on the peremptory strike sheet used by the parties. As noted above, the peremptory strike sheet included the race and gender of every'prospective juror. It also included codes indicating which party (if either) objected to a juror and whether that'objection was for cause or- was a peremptory strike. Finally, it- specifies thfe racial composition of the jury seated for- trial. Appellant cited the- peremptory strike sheet when making his Batson challenge. Therefore, Appellant’s failure to repeat orally the information during his Batson challenge did not waive his Batson claim.16
Turning to the merits of Appellant’s Batson claim, we first address his argument that listing the races and genders of prospective jurors on the peremptory strike sheet violated' Batson as a matter of law. Although we find the trial court’s practice both ill-advised and inappropriate, there are compelling grounds for refusing to adopt a per se rule that precludes this practice under Batson. First, there is no precedent for such a holding. Appellant is unable to cite'a single case from any jurisdiction which holds that this practice is a per se violation of Bat-son.
Second, adoption of a per se rule runs counter to the rationale of Batson, and that of several cases interpreting and applying the decision, all of which have encouraged courts to consider all relevant factors. Batson, 476 U.S. at 96, 106 S.Ct. 1712 (“[T]he defendant must show that these facts and any other relevant circumstances raise an- inference that the prosecutor used that practice to exclude the veniremen from the petit jury on account of their race.”); see Carrillo v. Texas, 2007 WL 2052070, *3 (Tex. App. July 19, 2007) (“[T]he Batson decision is . one of fact, not of per se rules of law.”); Louisiana v. Duncan, 802 So.2d 533, 550 (La. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (“[Ajttempts to. fashion absolute, per se rules are inconsistent with Batson in which the [Supreme Court of the United States] instructed trial courts to consider all relevant circumstances.”); United States v. Grandison, 885 F.2d 143, 147 (4th Cir. 1989), quoting United States v. Sangineto-Miranda, 859 F.2d 1501, 1521 (6th Cir. 1988) (“The Supreme Court’s mandate in Batson to consider all the facts and circumstances means that we cannot lay down clear rules[.]”); see also Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231, 247 n.6, 125 S.Ct. 2317, 162 L.Ed.2d 196 (2005) (“A per se rule that a defendant cannot win a Batson claim unless there is an exactly identical white juror [unaffected by the challenged practice] would leave Batson inoperable; potential- jurors- are not products of a set of cookie cutters.”). Accordingly, although we do not countenance the practice, we hold that .listing the races, and genders of potential jurors on the peremptory strike sheet did hot violate Batson as a matter of law.
Having determined that" listing the race and gender of prospective jurors does not constitute a per se Batson violation, we turn to a specific análysis of Appellant’s Batson claim. As noted above, the first step in the Batson analysis is determining whether Appellant made “a prima facie showing that the circumstances give rise to an inference that the prosecutor struck one or more prospective jurors on account of race[.]” Watkins, 108 A.3d at 708 (citation omitted). As our Supreme Court has explained:
To establish a prima fade case of purposeful discrimination!,] the defendant must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge or challenges to remove from the venire members of the defendant’s race; and that other relevant circumstances combine to raise an inference that the prosecutor removed the juror(s) for racial reasons.
Commonwealth v. Cook, 597 Pa. 572, 952 A.2d 594, 602 (2008) (internal alterations, ellipsis, footnote, and citation omitted).
We agree with the trial court’s conclusion that Appellant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.17 Appellant is African-American and the Commonwealth struck seven African-American prospective jurors. -Furthermore, although listing the races and gender of prospective jurors on the peremptory strike sheet did not qualify as--a per se Batson violation, it is a relevant circumstance that raised an inference that the prosecutor struck the jurors based on their race. Therefore, we agree with the trial court that Appellant established a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination.
The second step in the Batson analysis is the determination of whether the Commonwealth provided race-neutral explanations for striking the prospective jurors. Watkins, 108 A.3d at 708 (citation omitted). As our Supreme Court explained:
The second prong of the Batson test, involving the prosecution’s obligation to come forward with a race-neutral explanation of the challenges once a prima facie case is proven, does not demand an explanation that is persuasive, or even plausible. Rather, the issue at that stage 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.
Commonwealth v. Hatris, 572 Pa. 489, 817 A.2d 1038, 1043 (2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Here again, we agree with the trial court’s conclusion that the Commonwealth proffered race-neutral explanations for striking the four African-American jurors in question. The Commonwealth stated that it struck Jurors 56 and 57 because they were talking to each other and, joking throughout the voir dire process. N.T., 10/28/14, at 93. The Commonwealth also stated that Juror 56 was nodding and making faces while the trial court discussed the credibility of police officers. Id. The Commonwealth stated that.it struck Juror 61 because she didn’t identify the neighborhood in which she- lived on the juror questionnaire and. her ex-husband was a police officer. Id. Finally,.the -Commonwealth stated that it struck Juror 67,be-cause:
when she was being questioned by [the trial .court] she was leaning back, seemed a little cavalier, had her arm resting on the back and, while we were conducting voir dire in the back, she was sitting there with her arms crossed and her head kind of nodded, seemed guarded and again as if she. didn’t want to be here, so' I didn’t think she would be a fair'and competent juror.
Id. at 94. All of these reasons are facially acceptable. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the Commonwealth offered race-neutral reasons for striking the four African-Americans in question.
The third step in a Batson analysis involves determining if the defense carried its burden of proving purposeful discrimination. Watkins, 108 A,3d at 708 (citation .omitted). “It is at this stage that the persuasiveness of the facially-neutral explanation proffered by the -Commonwealth is relevant.” Commonwealth v. Towles, 630 Pa, 183, 106 A.3d 591, 601 (2014) (citation omitted).18
In this case, the trial court did not make an explicit determination during, voir dire that- Appellant failed to prove purposeful discrimination. See N.T., 10/28/14, at 94. The trial court’s denial of Appellant’s Batson challenge, along with the reasoning in its Rule 1925(a) opinion, see Trial Court Opinion, 2/24/16, at 19, indicates that the trial court implicitly found that-Appellant failed to prove purposeful discrimination. As our Supreme Court explained, a
trial court’s decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact of the sort accorded great deference on appeal and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. Such great deference is necessary because a reviewing court, which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well positioned as the trial court is to make credibility determinations. Moreover, there will seldom be much evidence on the decisive question of -whether the race-neutral explanation for a peremptory challenge should be believed; the best evidence often will be the demeanor of the prosecutor who exercises the challenge.
Commonwealth v. Williams, 602 Pa. 360, 980 A.2d 510, 531 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Although we must exercise great deference in reviewing the trial court’s factual finding with respect to discriminatory intent, we do not function as a rubber stamp, Cf. Foster v. Chatman, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1737, 1747-1755, 195 L.Ed.2d 1 (2016) (even under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996’s (“AEDPA’s’’) double deferential standard of review, the trial court’s factual finding with respect to discriminatory intent was clearly erroneous); Commonwealth v. Monahan, 860 A.2d 180, 185 (Pa. Super. 2004), appeal denied, 583 Pa. 688, 878 A.2d 863 (Pa. 2005) (In the context of a discretionary aspects of sentencing claim, in which we employ a highly deferential standard of review, we do not act as a rubber stamp.). In this case, the evidence establishes that the Commonwealth struck Juror 67 with discriminatory intent; therefore, we conclude that the trial court’s factual finding was clearly erroneous.19
We find three factors strongly indicative of discriminatory intent in this case; first, as noted above, the identification of the race and gender of the potential jurors on the peremptory strike sheet.20 Although this was not a per se Batson violation, when combined with the other factors listed below it supports an inference of racial discrimination. Second, the probability of the Commonwealth striking such a disproportionate number of African-Americans by chance is extremely low. Finally, the. Commonwealth’s race-neutral explanation for striking Juror 67 was wholly underper-suasive in that the Commonwealth relied on her supposedly inattentive posture to conclude that she would not discharge her duties as a juror in a fair and impartial manner.
During the peremptory strike process, 30 potential jurors were considered by the parties. Of those 30, 13 were African-American. The Commonwealth used seven of its eight peremptory strikes on African-Americans. An additional 14 potential jurors were Caucasian. The Commonwealth did not strike any of the Caucasian potential jurors. Finally, three of the potential jurors were - neither Caucasian nor African-American. The Commonwealth exercised its last peremptory strike on one of those three individuals.
It does not take a statistician to understand that the probability of striking no Caucasians- and striking at least 7 of 13 African-Americans by random chance is extremely small. Statistics alone are insufficient to prove discriminatory intent. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 635 Pa. 665, 139 A.3d 1257, 1282-1283 (2016) (citations omitted). Statistics can be used, however, when considering the totality of the circumstances to determine if the Commonwealth exercised its peremptory strikes in a discriminatory manner. See Commonwealth v. Ligons, 601 Pa. 103, 971 A.2d 1125, 1144 (2009).
The statistics in this case are startling.. Unlike many cases addressed by our Supreme Court, in this case the Commonwealth exercised all eight of its peremptory strikes on racial minorities and seven of those eight on African-Americans. See Pa. R.Crim.P. 633, 634 (setting forth the number of peremptory strikes that the Commonwealth may exercise); cf. Johnson, 139 A.3d at 1281-1283 (Commonwealth struck seven African-Americans and seven non-African-Americans and did not exercise all of its peremptory challenges); Commonwealth v. Roney, 622 Pa. 1, 79 A.3d 596, 620-621 (2013) (Commonwealth struck four Caucasians); Commonwealth v. Hutchinson, 611 Pa. 280, 25 A.3d 277, 287 (2011) (Commonwealth struck eight Caucasians); Ligons, 971 A.2d at 1143-1144 (Commonwealth struck two Caucasians and did not exercise eight or nine of its peremptory strikes21). Although the Commonwealth could not completely purge the jury in this case of African-Americans because of. the number of African-American members of the venire, the Commonwealth greatly reduced the number of African-Americans on the jury-in this case by exercising all of its peremptory strikes and using seven of those eight strikes on African-Americans. These probabilities, combined with the identification of the potential jurors’ races and genders on the peremptory. strike sheet and the proffered, but highly implausible, race-neutral explanation for striking Juror 67, cause us to conclude that Appellant met his burden in demonstrating that the Commonwealth struck .Juror 67 with discriminatory intent.
Finally, the most important factor when considering the totality of the circumstances is the race explanation offered by the Commonwealth. We focus on the Commonwealth’s race-neutral explanation for striking Juror 67, which is reproduced in full supra. Essentially, the Cómmon-wealth stated that it struck Juror 67 because she did not seem pleased to be called to jury duty. Although, as noted above, this was a facially ráce-neutral explanation, this same rationale could be used to strike almost every potential juror in almost every case tried throughout Pennsylvania. Few (if any) citizens are thrilled when they receive a jury summons in the mail. Instead, they begrudgingly arrive .at the courthouse to fulfill their civic duty (or avoid being arrested). The.trial court acknowledged this reality twice during the jury selection process in this case. N.T., 10/28/14, at 5, 52.
The Commonwealth also' stated that Juror 67 was leaning back in her chair with her arms crossed during the voir dire process. This, however, was encouraged by the trial court at the beginning of jury selection. Id. at 4 (“So-sit back and relax”). There is no assertion that she was disruptive, that she ignored the trial court’s instructions, or that she exhibited outward or palpable disinclination to discharge her duties as an impartial factfinder.
We find instructive the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in Snyder v. Louisiana, 552 U.S. 472, 128 S.Ct. 1203, 170 L.Ed.2d 175 (2008). In Snyder, the prosecutor struck a prospective African-American juror because he appeared nervous and because of concerns regarding his student teaching position. The trial court contacted his college dean and alleviated any concerns regarding his student teaching duties. Nonetheless, the trial court overruled the defendant’s Batson challenge and the state appellate courts affirmed. Justice Alito, writing for a seven-member majority, concluded that the trial court’s factual finding on discriminatory intent was clearly erroneous. Id. at 484-485, 128 S.Ct. 1203. Instead, considering the totality of the circumstances, the majority found the prosecution’s explanation for striking the prospective juror highly implausible and, therefore, pretextual. See id.) see also Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 339, 123 S.Ct. 1029, quoting Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765, 768, 115 S.Ct. 1769, 131 L.Ed.2d 834 (1995) (per curiam) (At. the third “stage, implausible or fantastic justifications may (and probably will) be found to be pretexts for purposeful discrimination.”); Commonwealth v. Garrett, 456 Pa.Super. 60, 689 A.2d 912, 917 (1997), appeal denied, 549 Pa. 712, 701 A.2d 575 (Pa. 1997) (citation omitted) (“An explanation which at first blush appears to be clear, specific and legitimate may be exposed as a pretext for racial discrimination when considered in the light of the entire voir dire proceeding.”); Commonwealth v. Jackson, 386 Pa.Super. 29, 562 A.2d 338, 350 (1989) (an banc) (Beck, J. opinion announcing the judgment of the court), appeal denied, 525 Pa. 631, 578 A.2d 926 (1990) (citation omitted) (same).22
In both Snyder and the case at bar the trial court did not make an explicit factual finding that it witnessed the alleged' demeanor relied upon by the prosecutor to strike the juror. See Snyder, 552 U.S. at 477, 128 S.Ct. 1203 (“[T]he trial court must evaluate not only whether the prosecutor’s demeanor belies a discriminatory intent, but also whether the juror’s demeanor can credibly be said to have exhibited the basis for the strike attributed to the juror by the prosecutor.”);-23 see also N.T., 10/28/14, at 94; Trial Court Opinion, 2/24/16, at 19. Moreover, in both Snyder and the case at bar the race-neutral explanation offered by the prosecutor was highly implausible when considered in light of the totality of the circumstances surrounding the voir dire process.
It is for this reason that our dissenting colleague’s argument; that we are “substituting [our] judgment for that of the trial court,” Dissenting Opinion, at 986, is flawed. Our dissenting colleague cites nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court observed Juror 67 and found that Juror 67’s demeanor credibly exhibited the basis for the strike attributed to her by the Commonwealth.
Instead of relying on Snyder, which is binding precedent, our learned colleague relies on Jackson, which is not binding precedent for the reasons set forth above. Moreover, Jackson differs from the factual scenario in the case sub judice.
The 'extensive portion of Judge Beck’s opinion quoted by our dissenting colleague did not address the third step of Batson. See Dissenting Opinion, at 987-88, quoting Jackson, 562 A.2d at 351 (Beck, J., opinion announcing the judgment of the court). Instead, this language came from Judge Beck’s discussion of the second Bat-son step. See Jackson, 562 A.2d at 351 (Beck, J., opinion announcing the judgment of the court).24 Judge Beck only reached the third Batson step with respect to jurors who were challenged because of their alleged familiarity with the location of the crime. See id. at 352-354. As noted above, we agree with the trial court, the Commonwealth, and our dissenting colleague that the Commonwealth’s proffered rationale for striking Juror 67 satisfied the second step of Batson. Our disagreement is with the trial court’s finding that Appellant failed to prove purposeful discrimination at step three of the Bat-son analysis.
Although Judge Beck did not reach the third Batson step in the portion of the opinion relied on by our dissenting colleague, she did reference it in her analysis of the second Batson step. Specifically, she stated that, “A trial judge should not uncritically accept [body language] or any other proffered explanation for a peremptory challenge. Instead, the judge should assess each proffered explanation in light of [his or] her independent recollection of the demeanor and responses of the venire panel members.” Id. at 351. As noted above, in the case at bar the trial court failed to assess the Commonwealth’s proffered explanation for striking Juror 67 in light of its independent recollection of Juror 67’s demeanor and responses. Thus, this case is more akin to Snyder than to Jackson — in which the plurality failed to reach step three of the Batson test.
The persuasive value of the Commonwealth’s explanation for striking Juror 67 is so low that, when combined with the other factors listed, above, the totality of the circumstances indicates that the Commonwealth struck Juror 67 with discriminatory intent. The trial court’s finding to the contrary was clearly erroneous. As such, we conclude that the Commonwealth violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by Batson. As a Batson violation can never be harmless error, Commonwealth v. Basemore, 560 Pa. 258, 744 A.2d 717, 734 (2000), we vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial.
In sum, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to convict Appellant at trial and Appellant’s challenge to the denial of his motions to quash is moot. We conclude, however, that the Commonwealth’s peremptory strike of Juror 67 was racially motivated and violated Batson. Accordingly, we vacate Appellant’s judgment of sentence and remand for a new trial. As explained in note 11 supra, because we remand for a new trial we decline to address Appellant’s remaining issues which would only entitle him to a new trial.
Judgment of sentence vacated. Case remanded. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Judge Musmanno joins this Opinion.
Judge Stabile files a Dissenting Opinion.