How have courts treated peremptory challenges for excusal of African-American female jurors?

People v. Lancaster (2007) 41 Cal.4th 50, 76, 58 Cal.Rptr.3d 608, 158 P.3d 157 [trial court properly found that prosecution's excusal of three of seven AfricanAmerican female jurors "had not reached a level that suggested an inference of discrimination"]; People v. Young (2005) 34 Cal.4th 1149, 1172, fn. 7, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 112, 105 P.3d 487 [defendant failed to make a prima facie showing based on prosecution's excusal of three AfricanAmerican female jurors because "[n]othing in Wheeler suggests that the removal of all members of a cognizable group, standing alone, is dispositive on the question of whether defendant has established a prima facie case"].) In this case, the prosecutor's use of three of nine peremptory challenges to excuse AfricanAmerican prospective jurors was insufficient, standing alone, to establish a prima face case of race discrimination.