WPC\ l|zMQ{;kϔ\Q3Um͓Ss%8,яj#׊$q Rq}s*JokI{br"}D_ 9D4/Y с) st;DPps$5B;^݀ |y)⠵^zL0 nFEU'g@bV&x9R.2pQ4yy|f_qV_UP2$8,@L{PJoʙx-U+ђءa#J' _~* O\G.T1 ^BDZ}t>e㷔d]du&!\J/hP=1._* 1Z$i dG*66]I\[5VY%X/?ӏptA[ҟۡb|N}J|l#&UbN %= 0YC^ w@4  m U>$$$$$$rbU@N 0 :"HP LaserJet 4250 PCL 6 (Copy 2)0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$OXXUSUS.,74 +D,-E.D/V0b23v4|5gڋ34onnie3|x5U\  `&Times New Roman h  \R3'Avery 5160 Address\(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular42Emphasis !֧XXUSUS.,  _ RQ֧@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @VV"#֧QR_#֧January21,2006 H #֧4#RQ֧#֧QR# L֧3 ֧@WHEELER/_BATSON_ԀDEVELOPMENTS#֧ L#RQ֧ P  #֧ 3#RQ֧ #֧QR #  ֧JonathanGrossman n  p  SixthDistritctAppellateProgram     2   RQ@@  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @@QQ"TRAININGSEMINAR L @@VV"#QRB#January21,2006 H RQ#QR:# L@@v v WHEELER/_BATSON_ԀDEVELOPMENTS# L#RQ P   @@" TableofContents n  #QR#RQ  XHX֧I.ThePolicy...................................................................................1 R  II.ThreeStepProcess.....................................................................1 N III.StepOne:DefendantMakesaPrimaFacieCase..................2 J IV.StepTwo:TheProsecutorProvidesaReason.......................7 F V.StepThree:TheCourtsInquiry............................................11 B VI.AppellateReview......................................................................13 >    8"  ֧֧  8֧dd8TABLEOFAUTHORITIES       FEDERALCASES      2%#XArlingtonHeightsv.MetropolitanHousingDevelopment,Corp.(1977)   X 2%#2%#429U.S.252""I%#.| | 8    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Batson_Ԁv.Kentucky(1986)    X 2%#2%#476U.S.79 D%#.  passim    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XBoydv._Newland_(9thCir.2004)    X 2%#2%#393F.3d1008 B%#. 7,9,13    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Boyde_Ԁv.Brown(9thCir.2005)    X 2%#2%#404U.S.1159 ! !D%#. 10,11    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XCastanedav._Partida_(1977)   X 2%#2%#430U.S.482""I%#.| | 3   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XChristianv._WalMart_ԀStores,Inc.(6thCir.2001)   X 2%#2%#252F.3d862""I%#. 2   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XChuangv.UniversityofCal.DavisBoardofTrustees(9thCir.2000)   X 2%#2%#225F.3d1115""I%#. 2   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XCollinsv.Rice(9thCir.2003)   X 2%#2%#348F.3d1082[cert.grantedsubnom.Ricev.Collins,June28,2005,No.0452]  M"M"H%#.10   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Cooperwood_Ԁv._Cambra_(9thCir.2001) !  X 2%#2%#245F.3d1042!!F%#. 4,7 "  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XDesertPalace,Inc.v.Costa(2003) $   X 2%#2%#539U.S.90""I%#.  8 % !  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XDurenv.Maryland(1979) '"#  X 2%#2%#439U.S.57""I%#.  3 (#$  X 2%#2%#_Edmonson_Ԁv._Leesvilee_ԀConcreteCo.,Inc.(1991) *%&  X 2%#2%#500U.S.614""I%#.| | 2 +&'  TRX3'Avery 5160 AddressX3' Letter3'Avery 5160 Address  FIRSTDISTRICTAPPE3'LetterT   +!!+ X 2%#2%#Fernandezv.Roe(9thCir.2002)   X 2%#2%#286F.3d1073""I%#. 6   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XGeorgiav._McCollum_(1992)   X 2%#2%#505U.S.42""I%#.  2   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XHernandezv.NewYork(1991)    X 2%#2%#500U.S.352YY>%#.| | 4,8,12,15    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XHoByHov.SanFranciscoUnifiedSchoolDistrict(9thCir.1998)    X 2%#2%#147F.3d854""I%#. 3    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_J.E.B._Ԁv.Alabama(1994)    X 2%#2%#511U.S.127""I%#.| | 3    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XJohnson\v.California(2005)   X 2%#2%#545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410,onremandNov.16,2005(S127602)] E(#.Npassim   X?+ ` hp x 2%#?_Kesser_Ԁv._Cambra_(9thCir.2004,No.0215475)    392F.3d327[rehearingenbancgrantedOct.14,2005]x!x!F(#.E8,14  Leahyv._Farmon_(9thCir.2004,No.0117467)    115_Fed.Appx_.403[rehearingenbancgrantedOct.14,2005]P"P"I(#.J14   2%#X_McClain_Ԁv._Prunty_(9thCir.2000)   X 2%#2%#217F.3d1209 ! !D%#. 10,12   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XMcDonnellDouglasCorp.v.Green(1973)   X 2%#2%#411U.S.792""I%#.| | 2    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XMillerElv._Cockrell_(2003) "  X 2%#2%#537U.S.3226%#.| | 2,6,12,13,15,16 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XMillerElv._Dretke_(2005) %!!  X 2%#2%#545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2317]6%#.+1,5,12,13,16,17 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Mitleider_Ԁv.Hall(9thCir.2004) ($$  X 2%#2%#391F.3d1039u!u!E%#. 9,10 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Monteil_Ԁv.CityofLosAngeles(9thCir.1993) +''  X 2%#2%#2F.3d335""I%#. 6 ,((  X 2%#2%#_Murchu_Ԁv.UnitedStates(1stCir.1991)   X 2%#2%#926F.2d50""I%#.  3   X 2%#2%#_Paulino_Ԁv.Castro(9thCir.2004)   X 2%#2%#371F.3d1082YY>%#. 6,7,16,17   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPowersv.Ohio(1991)    X 2%#2%#499U.S.400!!F%#.| | 1,2    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_PriceWaterhouse_Ԁv.Hopkins(1989)    X 2%#2%#490U.S.228""I%#.| | 8    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Purkett_Ԁv.Elem(1995)    X 2%#2%#514U.S.765;%#.| | 4,8,9,11,12    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Shaare_Ԁ_Tilfila_ԀCongregationv.Cobb(1987)   X 2%#2%#481U.S.615""I%#.| | 4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XSt.FrancisCollegev.Al_Khazraji_(1987)   X 2%#2%#481U.S.604""I%#.| | 4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XSwainv.Alabama(1965)   X 2%#2%#380U.S.202""I%#.| | 5   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XTexasDepartmentofCommunityAffairsv._Burdine_(1981)   X 2%#2%#450U.S.248""I%#.| | 2   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Tolbert_Ԁv.Gomez(9thCir.1999)   X 2%#2%#190F.3d985!!F%#. 7,9    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X_Tolbert_Ԁv.Page(9thCir.1999) "  X 2%#2%#182F.3d677u!u!E%#. 6,15 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XTurnerv.Marshall(9thCir.1995) %!!  X 2%#2%#63F.3d807[overruledon""I%#.(6 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XTurnerv.Marshall(9thCir.1997) ($$  X 2%#2%#121F.3d1248 ! !D%#. 10,12 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv._Alanis_(9thCir.2003) +''  X 2%#2%#335F.3d965M"M"H%#. 15 ,((  X 2%#2%#UnitedStatesv._Alcantar_(9thCir.1990)   X 2%#2%#897F.2d436M"M"H%#. 16   X 2%#2%#UnitedStatesv.Bishop(9thCir.1992)   X 2%#2%#959F.2d820 ! !D%#. 13,15   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv._Changco_(9thCir.1993)    X 2%#2%#1F.3d837M"M"H%#. 10    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Chinchilla(9thCir.1989)    X 2%#2%#874F.2d695u!u!E%#. 6,12    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv._Fike_(5thCir.1996)    X 2%#2%#82F.3d1315""I%#. 9    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Fletcher(9thCir.1992)   X 2%#2%#965F.2d781""I%#. 4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv._Kleifgen_(9thCir.1977)   X 2%#2%#557F.2d1293""I%#. 4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Lorenzo(9thCir.1993)   X 2%#2%#995F.2d1448""I%#. 8   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv._Pichay_(9thCir.1993)   X 2%#2%#986F.2d1239""I%#. 4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Power(9thCir.1989)   X 2%#2%#881F.2d733M"M"H%#. 10    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv._Somerstein_(E.D.N.Y.1997) "  X 2%#2%#959_F.Supp_.592""I%#. 4 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Stafford(7thCir.1998) %!!  X 2%#2%#136F.3d1109""I%#. 4 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.Thompson(9thCir.1987) ($$  X 2%#2%#827F.2d1254u!u!E%#. 6,10 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XUnitedStatesv.VasquezLopez(9thCir.1994) +''  X 2%#2%#22F.3d900""I%#.  6 ,((  X 2%#2%#Wadev._Terhune_(9thCir.2000)   X 2%#2%#202F.3d1190""I%#. 6   X 2%#2%#Williamsv._Rhoades_(9thCir.2004)   X 2%#2%#354F.3d1101 ! !D%#. 10,15   X?+ ` hp x 2%#?  STATECASES       2%#XInre_Hitchings_(1993)    X 2%#2%#6Cal.4th97""I%#.. . 9     X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Allen(2004)    X 2%#2%#115_Cal.App_.4th542M"M"H%#."16    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Allen(1989)    X 2%#2%#212_Cal.App_.3d306""I%#. !4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Alvarez(1996)   X 2%#2%#14Cal.4th155""I%#.  3   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Arias(1996)   X 2%#2%#13Cal.4th92u!u!E%#. 9,15   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Ayala_(2000)   X 2%#2%#23Cal.4th225""I%#.  4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Ayala_(2000)   X 2%#2%#24Cal.4th243?%#.  4,7,9,16   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Barber(1988) !  X 2%#2%#200_Cal.App_.3d378u!u!E%#. !9,10 "  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Box(2000) $   X 2%#2%#23Cal.4th1153YY>%#.r r 6,7,13,15 % !  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Boyette_(2002) '"#  X 2%#2%#29Cal.4th381M"M"H%#.  15 (#$  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Buckley(1997) *%&  X 2%#2%#53_Cal.App_.4th658!!F%#. !7,9 +&'  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? ,'(  2%#XPeoplev._Burgener_(2003)   X 2%#2%#29Cal.4th833!!F%#.  1,9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Carpenter(1997)   X 2%#2%#15Cal.4th312""I%#.  4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Cash(2002)    X 2%#2%#28Cal.4th703?%#.  3,4,8,11    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Catlin_(2001)    X 2%#2%#26Cal.4th81 ! !C%#. 1,2,9    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Cervantes(1991)    X 2%#2%#232_Cal.App_.3d232""I%#. !3    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Clair(1992)   X 2%#2%#2Cal.4th629!!F%#. 3,4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Cleveland(2004)   X 2%#2%#32Cal.4th704 B%#.  8,9,14   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Cornwell_(2005)   X 2%#2%#37Cal.4th50 B%#. 5,6,14   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Crittenden_(1994)   X 2%#2%#9Cal.4th83""I%#.. . 5   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Cummings(1993)   X 2%#2%#4Cal.4th1233""I%#.  9    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Davenport(1995) "  X 2%#2%#11Cal.4th1171YY>%#.r r 6,7,13,14 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Diaz(1984) %!!  X 2%#2%#152_Cal.App_.3d926""I%#. !9 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Douglas(1995) ($$  X 2%#2%#36_Cal.App_.4th1681""I%#."9 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Dunn(1995) +''  X 2%#2%#40_Cal.App_.4th1039M"M"H%#."10 ,((  X 2%#2%#Peoplev._Ervin_(2000)   X 2%#2%#22Cal.4th48@%#. 10,15,16   X 2%#2%#Peoplev._Farnam_(2002)   X 2%#2%#28Cal.4th107?%#.  6,7,9,15   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Fields(1983)    X 2%#2%#35Cal.3d329!!F%#. 3,4    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Freeman(1994)    X 2%#2%#8Cal.4th450[InreFreeman,_OSC_ԀissuedJul.28,2004(S122590)]M"M"H%#.P12    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Fuentes(1991)    X 2%#2%#54Cal.3d707M"M"H%#. 11    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Garceau_(1993)   X 2%#2%#6Cal.4th140""I%#. 3   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Garcia(2000)   X 2%#2%#77_Cal.App_.4th1209""I%#."4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Gray(2001)   X 2%#2%#87_Cal.App_.4th781!!F%#. !4,7   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Gray(2005)   X 2%#2%#37Cal.4th168;%#.  3,5,6,13,14   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Griffin(2004)   X 2%#2%#33Cal.4th536M"M"H%#.  14    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Gutierrez(2002) "  X 2%#2%#28Cal.4th1083}}?%#.r r 3,810,15 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Hall(1983) %!!  X 2%#2%#35Cal.3d161 ! !D%#. 11,16 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Hayes(1990) ($$  X 2%#2%#52Cal.3d577M"M"H%#. 15 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#?Peoplev.Henderson(1990) +''  X 2%#X225_Cal.App_.3d1129""I%#.LL"4 ,((  X?+ ` hp x 2%#?Peoplev.Howard(1992)   X 2%#X1Cal.4th1132 B%#.  3,9,10   X 2%#2%#Peoplev._Ibarra_   X 2%#2%#[_nonpub_._opn_.,rev.grantedJun.9,2004(S124067)]M"M"H%#.B17   X 2%#2%#Peoplev.Irvin(1996)    X 2%#2%#46_Cal.App_.4th1340M"M"H%#."14    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Johnson(2003)    X 2%#2%#30Cal.4th1302[reversedsubnom.Johnsonv.California]M"M"H%#.H13    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Johnson(1989)    X 2%#2%#47Cal.3d1194 D%#.6 6 passim    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Landry(1996)   X 2%#2%#49_Cal.App_.4th785M"M"H%#. !10   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Martin(1998)   X 2%#2%#64_Cal.App_.4th378 ! !C%#. !4,8,9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Martinez(2000)   X 2%#2%#82_Cal.App_.4th339""I%#. !9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.McCoy(1995)   X 2%#2%#40_Cal.App_.4th778""I%#. !4   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.McDermott(2002)   X 2%#2%#28Cal.4th946M"M"H%#.  14    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.McGee(2002) "  X 2%#2%#104_Cal.App_.4th559 ! !D%#."12,16 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Montiel_(1993) %!!  X 2%#2%#5Cal.4th877""I%#. 3 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Morris(2003) ($$  X 2%#2%#107_Cal.App_.4th402u!u!E%#."3,14 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Motton_(1985) +''  X 2%#2%#39Cal.3d596""I%#. 3 ,((  X 2%#2%#Peoplev.Ochoa(2001)   X 2%#2%#26Cal.4th398""I%#.  3   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Overby_(2004)   X 2%#2%#124_Cal.App_.4th1237M"M"H%#.#17   X 2%#2%#Peoplev._Panah_(2005)    X 2%#2%#35Cal.4th395 C%#.  6,810    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Perez(1994)    X 2%#2%#29_Cal.App_.4th13131 1 A%#."9,10,15    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Perez(1996)    X 2%#2%#48_Cal.App_.4th1310M"M"H%#."14    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Ramos(1997)   X 2%#2%#15Cal.4th1133""I%#.r r 3   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Reynoso_(2003)   X 2%#2%#31Cal.4th903:%#.  5,8,10,11,16   X?+ ` hp x 2%#?#֧ ֧f # ֧֧Peoplev.Robinson#֧ ֧ۑ# ֧֧Ԁ(2004)    116#֧ ֧2# ֧֧Ԁ#֧ ֧# ֧֧_Cal.App_.4th1302[rev.grantedJune9,2004(S123938)]P"P"I(#.I @  12#֧ ֧# ֧֧Ԉ  Peoplev.Robinson(2003)   X 2%#X110_Cal.App_.4th1196M"M"H%#.#16   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Rodriguez(1996)   X 2%#2%#50_Cal.App_.4th1013M"M"H%#."14    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Roldan_(2005) "  X 2%#2%#35Cal.4th64635M"M"H%#. 14 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Sanders(1990) %!!  X 2%#2%#51Cal.3d471""I%#. 7 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Schmeck_(2005) ($$  X 2%#2%#37Cal.4th240!!F%#.  4,6 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Silva(2001) +''  X 2%#2%#25Cal.4th345 ! !D%#.  15,16 ,((  X 2%#2%#Peoplev.Sims(1993)   X 2%#2%#5Cal.4th405u!u!E%#. 9,15   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Smith(2005)   X 2%#2%#35Cal.4th334M"M"H%#.  10   X 2%#2%#Peoplev._Stansbury_(1993)    X 2%#2%#4Cal.4th1017""I%#.  4    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev._Trevino_(1985)    X 2%#2%#39Cal.3d667""I%#. 3    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Turner(1994)    X 2%#2%#8Cal.4th137?%#. 6,7,9,10    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Walker(1988)   X 2%#2%#47Cal.3d605""I%#. 9   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Walker(1998)   X 2%#2%#64_Cal.App_.4th1062u!u!E%#."7,10   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Ward(2005)   X 2%#2%#36Cal.4th186u!u!E%#.  9,10   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Welch(1999)   X 2%#2%#20Cal.4th701M"M"H%#.  14   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Wheeler(1978)   X 2%#2%#22Cal.3d25 D%#.^ ^ passim    X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Williams(2000) "  X 2%#2%#78_Cal.App_.4th1118u!u!E%#."3,16 #  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Williams(1997) %!!  X 2%#2%#16Cal.4th153""I%#.  8 &""  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Williams(1997) ($$  X 2%#2%#16Cal.4th635""I%#.  9 )%%  X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Willis(2002) +''  X 2%#2%#27Cal.4th811M"M"H%#.  17 ,((  X 2%#2%#Peoplev._Wimbley_(1992)   X 2%#2%#5_Cal.App_.4th773""I%#.D D 7   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Yeoman(2003)   X 2%#2%#31Cal.4th93 B%#. 6,9,14   X?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#XPeoplev.Young(2005)    X 2%#2%#34Cal.4th1149 B%#.r r 3,8,10    X?+ ` hp x 2%#?  FEDERALSTATUTES      UnitedStatesCode     2%#X42U.S.C.1981""I%#. 4   ?+ ` hp x 2%#? 2%#X42U.S.C.1982""I%#. 4  ?+ ` hp x 2%#?.   ֧./   /00-,   ` ,-2#֧ ֧#23 3442֧֧2528HXXdd8252  22WHEELER/_BATSON_DEVELOPMENTS     ByJonathanGrossman,_SDAP_ԀStaffAttorney    THEPOLICY     Theuseofperemptorychallengestoremoveprospectivejurorsonthesoleground   ofgroupbiasviolatestherighttotrialbyajurydrawnfromarepresentativecrosssection   ofthecommunityunderarticleI,section16oftheCaliforniaConstitution(Peoplev.Wheeler   [(1978)22Cal.3d258,276277];aswellastheequalprotectionclauseoftheFourteenth   AmendmenttotheUnitedStatesConstitution.(_Batson_Ԁv.Kentucky[(1986)476    U.S.79,89].)(Peoplev._Burgener_(2003)29Cal.4th833,869.)InWheeler,theCalifornia   SupremeCourtheldthatthe usebyaprosecutortostrikeprospectivejurorsonthebasisof   groupmembershipviolatestherightofacriminaldefendanttotrialbyjurydrawnfroma   representativecrosssectionofthecommunityunderarticleI,section16oftheCalifornia   Constitution.Subsequently,in_Batson_Ԁv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79,8489#֧֧+#...֧֧ԀtheUnited   StatesSupremeCourtheldthatsuchapracticeviolates,interalia,thedefendantsrightto  equalprotectionofthelawsundertheFourteenthAmendmenttotheUnitedStates  Constitution#֧֧#...֧֧Ԁ.#֧֧#Ԁ֧֧Ԁ(Peoplev._Catlin_Ԁ(2001)26Cal.4th81,116,internalquotationmarks  omitted.)    Defendantsareharmed,ofcourse,whenracialdiscriminationinjuryselection  compromisestherightoftrialbyimpartialjury,butalsoitharmsminoritiesand thevery  integrityofthecourts.(MillerElv._Dretke_(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2317,2323  2324].) [_R]acial_Ԁdiscriminationintheselectionofjurorscastsdoubtontheintegrityofthe  judicialprocess,[citation]andplacesthefairnessofacriminalproceedingindoubt.[]The  juryactsasavitalcheckagainstthewrongfulexerciseofpowerbytheStateandits  prosecutors.[Citation.]Theintrusionofracialdiscriminationintothejuryselectionprocess  damagesboththefactandtheperceptionofthisguarantee.Justselectionistheprimary  meansbywhichacourtmayenforceadefendantsrighttobetriedbyajuryfreefromethnic,   racial,orpoliticalprejudice#֧֧>#...֧֧Ԁ(Powersv.Ohio(1991)499U.S.400,411.) !   THREESTEPPROCESS  #   First,thedefendantmustmakeoutaprimafaciecasebyshowingthatthetotality $  ofrelevantfactsgiverisetoaninferenceofdiscriminatorypurpose.[Citations].Second, % ! oncethedefendanthasmadeoutaprimafaciecase,theburdenshiftstotheStatetoexplain &!" adequatelytheracialexclusionbyofferingpermissibleraceneutraljustificationsforthe '"# [peremptory]strikes.[Citations.]Third,[_i]f_Ԁaraceneutralexplanationistendered,thetrial (#$ courtmustdecide#֧֧μ#...֧֧Ԁwhethertheopponentofthestrikehasprovedpurposefulracial )$% discrimination.[Citation.](Johnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410, *%& 2416].) +&' Ї  Thethreestepanalysisissimilartothetesttodetermineiftherewereemployment  discrimination.(_Batson_Ԁv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79,94,fn.18,relyingonTexasDept.  ofCommunityAffairsv._Burdine_(1981)450U.S.248;seealsoMillerElv._Cockrell_(2003)  537U.S.322,339.)Incivilrightsactions,theplaintiffmustfirstestablishaprimafacie  case.(McDonnellDouglasCorp.v.Green(1973)411U.S.792,802803.)Theproof  requiredtoestablishaprimafaciecaseis minimalanddoesnotevenneedtorisetothe   levelofpreponderanceoftheevidence.(Chuangv.Univ.ofCal.DavisBd.ofTrustees   (9thCir.2000)225F.3d1115,1124.)Toestablishaprimafaciecaseitmustbeshown:(1)   theplaintiffisamemberofaprotectedclass;(2)itattemptedtoreceivegoodsorservices   fromthedefendant;and(3)itwasdeniedthembecauseheorsheisamemberofthe   protectedclass.(Christianv._WalMart_ԀStores,Inc.(6thCir.2001)252F.3d862,872.)If   theplaintiffsatisfiestheinitialburdenofestablishingaprimafaciecaseofracial   discrimination,theburdenshiftstothedefendanttoproveithadalegitimate   nondiscriminatoryreasonfortheadverseaction.(McDonnellDouglas,supra,atp.802.)If   thedefendantmeetsthatburden,theplaintiffmustprovethatsuchareasonwasmerelya  pretextforintentionaldiscrimination.(Tex.Dept.ofCommunityAffairsv._Burdine_(1981)  450U.S.248,253.) Thisexplanationcomportswithourinterpretationoftheburden  shiftingframeworkincasesarisingunderTitleVIIoftheCivilRightsActof1964.  [Citations.](Johnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__,fn.7[125_S.Ct_.2410,2418,fn.7].)    Thedefendantneednotbefromthesamegroupoftheexcusedpotentialjuror.  (Powersv.Ohio(1991)499U.S.400,415;#֧֧)#Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,281֧֧.)  Discriminationagainstjurorsbecauseofrace,gender,etc.appliesincivilcases(_Edmonson_  v._Leesvilee_ԀConcreteCo.,Inc.(1991)500U.S.614),anditappliestodefendant'speremptory  challenges(Georgiav._McCollum_(1992)505U.S.42;Peoplev._Catlin_Ԁ(2001)26  Cal.4th81,116.)    STEPONE:DEFENDANTMAKESAPRIMAFACIECASE     Ifapartybelieveshisopponentisusinghisperemptorychallengestostrikejurors   onthegroundofgroupbiasalone,hemustraisethepointintimelyfashionandmakeaprima ! faciecaseofsuchdiscriminationtothesatisfactionofthecourt.First,#֧֧#...֧֧Ԁheshouldmake " ascompletearecordofthecircumstancesasisfeasible.Second,hemustestablishthatthe # personsexcludedaremembersofacognizablegroupwithinthemeaningofthe $  representativecrosssectionrule.Thirdfromallthecircumstancesofthecase,hemustshow % ! astronglikelihoodthatsuchpersonsarebeingchallengedbecauseoftheirgroupassociation &!" ratherthanbecauseofanyspecificbias.(Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,280,fn. '"# omitted,overruledinpartinJohnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410, (#$ 2416].)Californias stronglikelihoodstandardfromWheelerdidnotmeetthe )$% requirementsof_Batson_whichrequiredonlya reasonableinferenceofdiscrimination. *%& (Johnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410,2416].) +&' _ԇ  (1)AdequateRecord     #֧֧l#Thedefendantwaivestheclaimifheorshefailstomakeatimelyobjectionanda  recordsufficientforappellantreview.֧֧(Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,280;People  v.Morris(2003)107Cal.App.4th402,408409#֧֧ #.)֧֧Ԁ    (2)CognizableGroup      #֧֧#Thedismissedpotentialjurormustberemovedbecauseheorsheisfromadistinctive   group.Thefederalruleisthatacognizablegrouphadtobe arecognizabledistinctclass,   singledoutfordifferenttreatmentunderthelaws,aswrittenorasapplied.(Castanedav.   Partida(1977)430U.S.482,494.)Themovingparty mustshowthat...thegroup[is]one    themembersofwhichareexperiencingunequal,i.e.,discriminatory,treatment,andneeds   protectionfromcommunityprejudices.(Murchuv.UnitedStates(1stCir.1991)926F.2d   50,54.)Californialawhasdescribedacognizablegroupasagroupofpeoplewhosharea   commonbackgroundorshareadistinctiveviewpoint.(Peoplev.Fields(1983)35Cal.3d   329,349.)Thismightbebroaderthanthefederaldefinition.(See֧֧Peoplev.Young(2005)  34Cal.4th1149,#֧֧^#1236(conc.opn.ofBrown,J.).)֧֧    TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasappliedBatsononlytoraceandgender.(See  КPeoplev.Cash(2002)28Cal.4th703,724.)Othercourtshaveconsideredthefollowingto  beacognizablegroup:    Racialgroups.(Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258;  Batsonv.Kentucky  ݀(1986)  476U.S.79;Peoplev.Alvarez(1996)14Cal.4th155[blacks];HoByHov.SanFrancisco  UnifiedSchoolDist.(9thCir.1998)147F.3d854[Chinese].) InWheeler,weimposedno  requirementthatthedefendantestablishthatsystematicallyexcludedblackjurorswereof  AfricanAmerican,Caribbean,AfricanorLatinAmericandescent.(Peoplev.Trevino  (1985)39Cal.3d667,687,overruledonothergroundsinPeoplev.Johnson(1989)47  Cal.3d1194,1219;Peoplev.Gray(2005)37Cal.4th168,187,fn.3.)  ̀  Hispanics.(Peoplev.Ochoa(2001)26Cal.4th398,426;Peoplev.Ramos(1997)15 ! Cal.4th1133,1154;Peoplev.Montiel(1993)5Cal.4th877,907911;Peoplev.Trevino " (1985)39Cal.3d667,686;butPeoplev.Gutierrez(2002)28Cal.4th1083,1123[Hispanic # surnameisnotnecessarilyanHispanic].) $    Gender.(J.E.B.v.Alabama(1994)511U.S.127;Durenv.Maryland(1979)439U.S. &"" 57;Peoplev.Howard(1992)1Cal.4th1132;Peoplev.Williams(2000)78Cal.App.4th1118 '## [men];Peoplev.Cervantes(1991)232Cal.App.3d232,332.) ($$   Genderwithracialsubgroup.(Peoplev.Motton(1985)39Cal.3d596,605[black *&& women];Peoplev.Garceau(1993)6Cal.4th140,171[Hispanicfemale];Peoplev._Clair +'' (1992)2Cal.4th629,652[blackfemale],overruledonanotherpointinPeoplev.Johnson  (1989)47Cal.3d1194,12191221;Peoplev.Gray(2001)87_Cal.App_.4th781,788[black  male];but_Cooperwood_Ԁv._Cambra_(9thCir.2001)245F.3d1042,1046[blackmale].)    Religion.(Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258;276;Peoplev.Johnson  (1989)47Cal.3d1194,1215[Jews];see_Shaare_Ԁ_Tilfila_ԀCongregationv.Cobb(1987)481   U.S.615,617[permittingJewstostateaclaimunder42#֧֧#U.S.C.֧֧Ԁ1982];St.FrancisCollege   v.Al_Khazraji_(1987)481U.S.604[permittingArabancestryasabasisforaclaimunder42   #֧֧#U.S.C.֧֧Ԁ1981];butseePeoplev._Schmeck_(2005)37Cal.4th240,274[itisdifficulttoshow   biasagainstreligionfromtherecordonappeal];UnitedStatesv._Somerstein_(E.D.N.Y.   1997)959_F.Supp_.592[Jews];UnitedStatesv.Stafford(7thCir.1998)136F.3d1109,   1114.)ButcanexcludeJehovahsWitnesseswhowillnotjudgeothers.(Peoplev.Cash   (2002)28Cal.4th703,725;Peoplev.Martin(1998)64_Cal.App_.4th378,383384;seealso   Peoplev.Allen(1989)212_Cal.App_.3d306,315316[pastorsreligionwouldinterferewith   hisabilitytodeliberate].)    Homosexuals.(Peoplev.Garcia(2000)77_Cal.App_.4th1209.)  К  Thefollowinghavebeenfoundnottobedistinctivegroups:    Poorpeople.(Peoplev.Carpenter(1997)15Cal.4th312,352[jurypoolselection];  Peoplev.McCoy(1995)40_Cal.App_.4th778,783[andcasescitedtherein];Peoplev.  Henderson(1990)225_Cal.App_.3d1129,1153;UnitedStatesv._Pichay_(9thCir.1993)986  F.2d1239;UnitedStatesv._Kleifgen_(9thCir.1977)557F.2d1293,1296.)    Youngadults.(UnitedStatesv.Fletcher(9thCir.1992)965F.2d781,782[college  students];Peoplev._Ayala_(2000)24Cal.4th243,277278;Peoplev._Ayala_(2000)23  Cal.4th225,257;seePeoplev._Stansbury_(1993)4Cal.4th1017,1061.)    PeoplewhodonotspeakEnglish.(Hernandezv.NewYork(1991)500U.S.352.) !   Peoplewhohavebeenarrested,beenvictims,orbelieveinlawandorder.(Peoplev. # Fields(1983)35Cal.3d329,348.) $    Peoplewithlonghairandbeard.(_Purkett_Ԁv.Elem(1995)514U.S.765,769(per &"" _curiam_).) '##   (3)PrimaFacieShowingofGroupBias  )%%   Groupbiasisthepresumptionthatjurorsarebiasedmerelybecausetheyare *%& membersofanidentifiablegroup,distinguishedongroundssuchasrace,religion,ethnicity, +&' orgender.(Peoplev._Crittenden_(1994)9Cal.4th83,115,internalquotationmarks  omitted.)Bycontrast,acceptablesuspectedindividualor specificbiasis abiasrelating  totheparticularcaseontrialorthepartiesorwitnessesthereto.(Peoplev.Johnson  (1989)47Cal.3d1194,1215.)    Thereisafourprongtesttodeterminewhetherthereisaprimafaciecase: [a]A   partymayshowthathisopponentstruckmostorallofthemembersoftheidentifiedgroup   fromthevenire.#֧֧#...֧֧Ԁ[b]Hemayalsodemonstratethatthejurorsinquestionshareonlythis   onecharacteristic"theirmembershipinthegroup"andthatinallotherrespectstheyareas   heterogenousasthecommunityasawhole.[c]Next,theshowingmaybesupplemented#֧֧#...֧֧   bysuchcircumstancesasthefailureoftheopponenttoengagethesesamejurorsinmorethan   desultoryvoirdire,orindeedtoaskthemanyquestionsatall.[d]Lastly,#֧֧#...֧֧Ԁthedefendant   neednotbeamemberoftheexcludedgroupinordertocomplainofaviolationofthe   representativecrosssectionrule.#֧֧"#...֧֧Ԁbutthiscanbeprobativeinmakingthedetermination.   (Peoplev.Wheeler    (1978)22Cal.3d258,280281;Peoplev._Reynoso_(2003)31  Cal.4th903,914.) [A]patternofstrikesagainstblackjurorsincludedintheparticular  veniremightgiverisetoaninferenceofdiscrimination.Similarly,theprosecutorsquestions  andstatementsduringvoirdireexaminationandinexercisinghischallengesmaysupportor  refuteaninferenceofdiscriminatorypurpose.(_Batson_Ԁv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79,96  97.)    TheCaliforniaSupremeCourthasstatedthattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthas  notrequiredacomparativeanalysisindeterminingwhetherthereisaprimafaciecase.  (Peoplev.Gray(2005)37Cal.4th168,189.)Butconsiderthehistoricalcontextof_Batson_.  Originally,thedefendantneededtoprovediscriminatorypurposeintheprosecution's  peremptorychallenges,andtheprosecutordidnotneedtorebuttheallegationatall.(Swain  v.Alabama(1965)380U.S.202,223224.)Thisstandardwasconsideredtobetooonerous  becauseitreliedonthedefendantproducingevidencefromothercases.(SeeMillerElv.  _Dretke_(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2317,2324].)TheCourtin_Batson_neveroverruled   Swain,excepttostatethethreestepprocessinwhichadefendantcouldshowinvidious ! discriminationwithoutneedingtorelyonevidencefromoutsidethetrial.#֧֧#(Id.atp.2324.)֧֧ " ЀAdefendantmayrelyon allrelevantcircumstances'toraiseaninferenceofpurposeful # discrimination.#֧֧#(Id.atp.֧֧Ԁ2325,quoting_Batson_Ԁv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79,9697;see $  alsoJohnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410,24162417&fn.5.) %!!   Aprimafaciecaseofdiscriminationisusuallynotshownsimplybecausethe '## prosecutorexcusedoneortwopotentialjurorsfromaparticulargroup.(Peoplev.Gray ($$ (2005)37Cal.4th168,186192[removaloftwopotentialjurorswhenothersstayeddidnot )%% showprimafaciecase];Peoplev._Cornwell_(2005)37Cal.4th50,6970[removingonlyone *&& oftwoblackpotentialjurorswhospokeofapersonalexperiencewithanunfairhomicide +'' investigationshowedlackofprimafaciecase];Peoplev._Panah_(2005)35Cal.4th395,442  [severalwomenremovednotaprimafaciecase];#֧֧#Peoplev.Yeoman(2003)31  Cal.4th93,֧֧115[excused2blackpotentialjurors];Peoplev.Box(2000)23Cal.4th1153,  11881189;Peoplev.Davenport(1995)11Cal.4th1171,1200;Peoplev.Turner(1994)8  Cal.4th137,165;seePeoplev._Schmeck_(2005)37Cal.4th240,269270[noprimafaciecase  forremovingJewishpotentialjurorwhennotclearprosecutorrememberedthepersonwas   Jewish];butseeJohnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410,2419][removing   allthreeblackpotentialjurorsinatrialofablackdefendantandawhitevictimcreateda   primafaciecase].)     Exampleswheretherewasaprimafacieevidence:Johnsonv.California(2005)545   U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410,2419][removingallthreeblackpotentialjurorsinatrialofablack   defendantandawhitevictimcreatedaprimafaciecase];MillerElv._Cockrell_(2003)537   U.S.322,342[ Theprosecutionusedtheirperemptorystrikestoexclude91%oftheeligible   AfricanAmericanveniremembers];_Paulino_Ԁv.Castro(9thCir.2004)371F.3d1082,1090  1092[primafaciecasewhenremoved5of6blackpotentialjurors];Fernandezv.Roe(9th  Cir.2002)286F.3d1073,1078[prosecutorused4of19challenges(21%)toeliminate4of  7(57%)Hispanicswhowere12%ofvenire];Wadev._Terhune_(9thCir.2000)202F.3d  1190,1198[ theConstitutionforbidsstrikingevenasingleprospectivejurorfora  discriminatorypurpose[,]#֧֧)#...֧֧Ԁthefactthatthejurorwastheone[minority]memberofthe  veniredoesnot,initself,raiseaninferenceofdiscrimination.];Turnerv.Marshall(9th  Cir.1995)63F.3d807,813[5of9(56%)toeliminate5of9(56%)blackswhowere30%  ofvenire;neednotremoveeveryjurorfromtheclass],overruledonothergroundsin_Tolbert_  v.Page(9thCir.1999)182F.3d677(enbanc);UnitedStatesv.VasquezLopez(9thCir.  1994)22F.3d900,902[neednotshowpattern;oneremovalcouldbeunconstitutionalbut  mustshowmorethanmereremoval];_Monteil_Ԁv.CityofLosAngeles(9thCir.1993)2F.3d  335,348[neednotremoveeveryjurorfromtheclass];UnitedStatesv.Chinchilla(9thCir.  1989)874F.2d695,698[removedallHispanicswhowouldhavebeenjurorsoralternate  jurors];UnitedStatesv.Thompson(9thCir.1987)827F.2d1254,12561257[allfour   challengesusedtoremoveblacks]. !   Exampleswheretherewasnotaprimafacieevidence:Peoplev._Schmeck_(2005)37 # Cal.4th240,269270[noprimafaciecaseforremovingJewishpotentialjurorwhennotclear $  prosecutorrememberedthepersonwasJewish];Peoplev.Gray(2005)37Cal.4th168,186 %!! 192[removaloftwopotentialjurorswhenothersstayeddidnotshowprimafaciecase]; &"" Peoplev._Cornwell_(2005)37Cal.4th50,6970[removingonlyoneoftwoblackpotential '## jurorswhospokeofapersonalexperiencewithanunfairhomicideinvestigationshowedlack ($$ ofprimafaciecase];Peoplev._Panah_(2005)35Cal.4th395,442[severalwomenremoved )%% notaprimafaciecase];#֧֧5#Peoplev.Yeoman(2003)31Cal.4th93,֧֧115[excused2black *&& potentialjurors];Peoplev._Farnam_(2002)28Cal.4th107,135,136[4offirst5challenges +'' againstblacks,smallminorityofpanelwasblack,butdefendantwaswhite];Peoplev.Box  (2000)23Cal.4th1153,11881189[3blacks];Peoplev.Davenport(1995)11Cal.4th1171,  1200[3of6challengedpotentialjurorshadHispanicsurnames];Peoplev.Turner(1994)  8Cal.4th137,165[bothblacksonthepanel];Peoplev.Sanders(1990)51Cal.3d471,500  [allfourwithSpanishsurnames];Peoplev.Gray(2001)87_Cal.App_.4th781,788[allthree  blacksonthepanel];Peoplev.Walker(1998)64_Cal.App_.4th1062[removedonly1of2   blackpotentialjurors];Peoplev.Buckley(1997)53_Cal.App_.4th658[removedtwo];People   v._Wimbley_(1992)5_Cal.App_.4th773[removedonlyHispanic];Boydv._Newland_Ԁ(9thCir.   2004)393F.3d1008,1013[removedtwoblacks];_Cooperwood_Ԁv._Cambra_(9thCir.2001)   245F.3d1042,1047[oneoftwoblacks];_Tolbert_Ԁv.Gomez(9thCir.1999)190F.3d   985,989[theremustbemorethansimplyremovingaminoritypotentialjuror].     STEPTWO:THEPROSECUTORPROVIDESAREASON  x      Oncethedefendantmakesaprimafacieshowing,theburdenshiftstotheStateto   comeforwardwithaneutralexplanationforchallengingblackjurors.#֧֧ #...֧֧ԀTheprosecutor#֧֧7!#...֧֧   mustarticulateaneutralexplanationrelatedtotheparticularcasetobetried.(_Batson_Ԁv.  Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79,98.) [_T]he_Ԁprosecutor[maynot]rebutthedefendants[prima  facie]casemerelybydenyingthathehadadiscriminatorymotiveor_affirm[ing_][his]good  faithinmakingindividualselections.[Citation.]Ifthesegeneralassertionswereaccepted  asrebuttingadefendantsprimafaciecase,theEqualProtectionClausewouldbebutavain  anillusoryrequirement.[Citations.]#֧֧!#(Ibid.)֧֧Ԁ    Itdoesnotmatterifthecourtcancomeupwithareason;theprosecutorissupposed  togivehisorheractualreasonfortheremoval. [_I]t_Ԁdoesnotmatterthattheprosecutor  mighthavehadgoodreasonstostriketheprospectivejurors.Whatmattersistherealreason  theywerestricken.(_Paulino_Ԁv.Castro(9thCir.2004)371F.3d1082,1090.)    Unlessnecessary,prosecutorshallnotgivethereasonexparte.(Peoplev._Ayala_  (2000)24Cal.4th243,262263.)     Ifthecourtfindsthataprimafaciecasehasbeenmade,theburdenshiftstotheother " partytoshowifhecanthattheperemptorychallengesinquestionwerenotpredicatedon # groupbiasalone.Theshowingneednotrisetothelevelofachallengeforcause.Butto $  sustainhisburdenofjustification,theallegedlyoffendingpartymustsatisfythecourtthat % ! heexercisedsuch_peremptories_Ԁongroundsthatwerereasonablyrelevanttotheparticular &!" caseontrialoritspartiesorwitnesses#֧֧$#"֧֧i.e.,forreasonsofspecificbiasasdefinedherein. '"# He,too,maysupporthisshowingbyreferencestothetotalityofthecircumstances:for (#$ example,itwillberelevantifhecandemonstratethatinthecourseofthesamevoirdirehe )$% alsochallengedsimilarlysituatedmembersofthemajoritygrouponidenticalorcomparable *%& grounds.(Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,281282,fn.omitted.) +&' Ї  Isdiscriminationbasedonacognizablegroupacceptableifthereisalsoanon  invidiousreasonforremovingthepotentialjuror?(See_Kesser_Ԁv._Cambra_(9thCir.2004,  No.0215475)formerlyat392F.3d327,337,rehearingenbancgrantedOct.14,2005.)The  UnitedStatesSupremeCourthaspermittedtheremovalofanHispanicpotentialjurorwho  wouldlistentoaSpanishinterpreter.(Hernandezv.NewYork(1991)500U.S.352,359,  371.)Thereligiousviewsoftheprospectivejuror,makingitdifficultforhimorhertojudge,   isacceptable.(Peoplev.Martin(1998)64_Cal.App_.4th378,381,384[JehovahsWitness   whosaidcouldfulfillthedutyofajuror].)Incivilcases,amixedreasonwhichincludes   prohibiteddiscriminationisnotpermissible.(See,e.g.,ArlingtonHeightsv.Metropolitan   HousingDevelopment,Corp.(1977)429U.S.252,265266[Plaintiffisnotrequired to   provethatthechallengedactionrestedsolelyonraciallydiscriminatorypurposes.#֧֧*#...֧֧ԀWhen   thereisaproofthatadiscriminatorypurposehasbeenamotivatingfactorinthedecision,   thisjudicialdeference[tothedefendant'sreasons]isnolongerjustified.];_PriceWaterhouse_   v.Hopkins(1989)490U.S.228,241,258[unlessthedefendantwouldhavemadethesame   decisionwithoutconsideringraceorgender];DesertPalace,Inc.v.Costa(2003)539  U.S.90,101102[same].)    Thesecondstepofthisprocessdoesnotdemandanexplanationthatispersuasive,  orevenplausible.Atthis[second]stepoftheinquiry,theissueisthefacialvalidityofthe  prosecutorsexplanation.Unlessadiscriminatoryintentisinherentintheprosecutors  explanation,thereasonofferedwillbedeemedraceneutral.(_Purkett_Ԁv.Elem(1995)514  U.S.765,767768(per_curiam_);Peoplev._Reynoso_(2003)31Cal.4th903,916.)#֧֧2# The  reasonsadvancedbythechallengingpartyatsteptwoneednotbetacticallysoundoreven  plausible;absentadiscriminatoryintentinherentintheprofferedreasons,thosereasonswill  bedeemedraceneutral.֧֧(Peoplev.Cash(2002)28Cal.4th703,724,citing#֧֧A8#Ԁ_Purkett_Ԁv.Elem  (1995)514U.S.765,768֧֧(per_curiam_)#֧֧ 9#.)֧֧    Anynonracialreasonforremovingapotentialjurorissufficient:    Becauseprosecutorwishedtoaskthepotentialjurormorequestions.(Peoplev. ! Cleveland(2004)32Cal.4th704,733.) "   Mistake.(Peoplev.Gutierrez(2002)28Cal.4th1083,1124[misunderstoodthe $  answer];Peoplev.Williams(1997)16Cal.4th153,188189;UnitedStatesv.Lorenzo(9th %!! Cir.1993)995F.2d1448,14541455[timecrunch].) &""   Legalcontacts.( Peoplev._Panah_(2005)35Cal.4th395,441442[potentialjurorwas ($$ arrestedandchargedwithacrime];Peoplev.Young(2005)34Cal.4th1149,1174[counselor )%% hadtestifiedbeforeinsexassaultcases];Peoplev.Cleveland(2004)32Cal.4th704,733 *&& [sonwasinjail];Peoplev.Gutierrez(2002)28Cal.4th1083,1124[fatherwasarrestedand +'' _chargedwithacrimeandthepotentialjurorhadbeenroughedupbyofficers];Peoplev.  Farnam(2002)28Cal.4th107,137138;Peoplev.Williams(1997)16Cal.4th635,664665  [byfamilymember];Peoplev.Arias(1996)13Cal.4th92,138;Peoplev.Turner(1994)8  Cal.4th137,171;Peoplev.Sims(1993)5Cal.4th405,430;Peoplev.Cummings(1993)4  Cal.4th1233,1282;Peoplev.Johnson(1989)47Cal.3d1194,1215;Peoplev.Walker  (1988)47Cal.3d605,625626;#֧֧9#Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,275[beenacrime   victim];֧֧ԀPeoplev.Douglas(1995)36Cal.App.4th1681,1690;Peoplev.Martinez(2000)   82Cal.App.4th339,344345[familymember];Peoplev.Martin(1998)64Cal.App.4th378,   385,fn.5[crimevictim];Peoplev.Buckley(1997)53Cal.App.4th658,667;Peoplev.   Barber(1988)200Cal.App.3d378;Mitleiderv.Hall(9thCir.2004)391F.3d1039,1041   1045,10481051[contactsbyfamilymembers].)     Servedonhungjurybefore.(Peoplev.Farnam(2002)28Cal.4th107,137138.)     Viewsonthelegalsystem.(Peoplev.Ward(2005)36Cal.4th186,201[unfavorable  viewstowardguilt];Peoplev.Cleveland(2004)32Cal.4th704,733[hesitantinanswering  questionsonthedeathpenalty];#֧֧#A#Peoplev.Yeoman(2003)31Cal.4th93,֧֧116117[notstrong  enoughviewsonthedeathpenalty];Peoplev.Burgener(2003)29Cal.4th833,864  [skepticalinimposingdeathpenalty];Peoplev.Farnam(2002)28Cal.4th107,137;People  v.Caitlin(2001)26Cal.4th81,118[skepticalaboutimposingdeathpenalty];Peoplev.  Buckley(1997)53Cal.App.4th658,666667[legaltraining];Boydv.Newland(9thCir.  2004)393F.3d1008,1013[ambivalencetowardsthelegalsystem];Tolbertv.Gomez(9th  Cir.1999)#֧֧5E# ֧֧190F.3d985#֧ ֧G#֧֧;UnitedStatesv.Fike(5thCir.1996)82F.3d1315,1320.)    Thepotentialjurorslackofdisclosure.(Peoplev.Diaz(1984)152Cal.App.3d926,  932;seeInreHitchings(1993)6Cal.4th97,112;Mitleiderv.Hall(9thCir.2004)391F.3d  1039,10411045,10481051[potentialjurorapparentlynothonest].)    Thepotentialjurorappearedtobeanonconformer.(Purkettv.Elem(1995)514U.S.   765,769(percuriam)[longhair];Peoplev.Ayala(2000)24Cal.4th243,261;Peoplev. ! Howard(1992)1Cal.4th1132,1208;Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,275.) "   Lackoflifeexperiences.(Peoplev.Sims(1993)5Cal.4th405,429;Peoplev.Perez $  (1994)29Cal.App.4th1313,1328;Mitleiderv.Hall(9thCir.2004)391F.3d1039,1041 %!! 1045,10481051[andyoungandimmature].) &""   Daughterwasrapedbypsychologistinacaseconcerningpsychologicaltestimony. ($$ (Peoplev.Panah(2005)35Cal.4th395,442.) )%%  +''   Thepotentialjurorsoccupation.(Peoplev.Young(2005)34Cal.4th1149,1174  [counselorwhohastestifiedbeforeinothersexassaultcasesandonewhowasaninsurance  claimsspecialist];Peoplev.Howard(1992)1Cal.4th1132,11551156[nonpracticing  registerednurse];Peoplev.Landry(1996)49Cal.App.4th785,790[youthservices];People  v.Barber(1988)200Cal.App.3d378,394;UnitedStatesv.Thompson(9thCir.1987)827  F.2d1254,1260.)     Reluctancetobeajuror.(Peoplev.Walker(1998)64Cal.App.4th1062,1070;   Mitleiderv.Hall(9thCir.2004)391F.3d1039,10411045,10481051.)     Eagernesstobeajuror.(Peoplev.Ervin(2000)22Cal.4th48,76.)     Hesitanceinapplyingthedeathpenalty.(Peoplev.Panah(2005)35Cal.4th395,   441;Peoplev.Smith(2005)35Cal.4th334,347.)     Hesitance,transientbackground,andgrandmotherlypersona.(Boydev.Brown(9th  Cir.2005)404U.S.1159,1170.)    Bodylanguagecanbepropergrounds,atleastifthereisasufficientrecordtosupport  theprosecutor'sobservations.(Peoplev.Ward(2005)36Cal.4th186,202[hostilitytoward  prosecutor;thoughrecordissilent,otherthantheprosecutorsassertions,thereisno  evidencetocontradictit];Peoplev.Reynoso(2003)31Cal.4th903,919;Peoplev.Gutierrez  (2002)28Cal.4th1083,11251126[hostilelookatprosecutor]Peoplev.Ervin(2000)22  Cal.4th48[nervousnessduringvoirdire];Peoplev.Turner(1994)8Cal.4th137,170  [potentialjurorwontlookprosecutorintheeye];Peoplev.Johnson(1989)47Cal.3d1194,  1220[shy];Peoplev.Dunn(1995)40Cal.App.4th1039,1047;Peoplev.Perez(1994)27  Cal.App.4th1313,1330[inappropriatelaughter];Mitleiderv.Hall(9thCir.2004)391F.3d  1039,10411045,10481051;Williamsv.Rhoades(9thCir.2004)354F.3d1101  [uncorroboratedassertionbyprosecutorofthepotentialjurorsbodylanguageenoughfor   affirmancebecauseofdeferentialstandardofreview];butseeMcClainv.Prunty(9thCir. ! 2000)217F.3d1209[impliedbodylanguagenotenoughwithouttheprosecutorstatingthe " reason];Turnerv.Marshall(9thCir.1997)121F.3d1248,1254[cannotinferdemeanor # whenprosecutorneversaidso];UnitedStatesv.Power(9thCir.1989)881F.2d733,740 $  [fidgetyandinattentive];UnitedStatesv.Changco(9thCir.1993)1F.3d837,840[passive %!! andinattentive].)Thedeferencefederalcourtsowetoastatecourtdeterminationonwhether &"" thestatecourtproperlyfoundtheprosecutorsrelianceonbodylanguageiscurrentlybeing '## consideredbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.(#֧֧6H#Collinsv.Rice(9thCir.2003)348F.3d ($$ 1082,1097,cert.grantedsubnom.Ricev.Collins,June28,2005,No.0452.֧֧) )%%   Oncetheprosecutorgivesareason,gotostepthree.#֧֧[# [E]veniftheStateproduces +'' onlyafrivolousorutterlynonsensicaljustificationforitsstrike,thecasedoesnotend!it  merelyproceedstostepthree.[Citation.]ThefirsttwoBatsonstepsgoverntheproduction  ofevidence....Inthethirdstep,thedefendanthasthe burdenofprovingpurposeful  discrimination.(Johnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__[125S.Ct.2410,24172418].)  Iftheprosecutionfailstogiveareason,thissimplysuppliesadditionalsupportforthe  inferenceofpurposefuldiscrimination.(Seeid.atp.__,fn.6[125S.Ct.2410,2417,fn.6].)   ֧֧  STEPTHREE:THECOURT'SINQUIRY    #֧֧[_#  Itisnotuntilthethirdstepthatthepersuasivenessofthejustificationbecomes   relevant!thestepinwhichthetrialcourtdetermineswhethertheopponentofthestrikehas    carriedhisburdenofprovingpurposefuldiscrimination.(Purkettv.Elem(1995)514U.S.   765,768֧֧(percuriam)#֧֧Ta#.) Onlyatstepthreeisthepersuasivenessofthereasonrelevant.At   thatstageimplausibleorfantasticjustificationsmay...befoundtobepretextsfor   purposefuldiscrimination.XHX֧Ԁ#֧XXHb#֧֧Ԁ(Peoplev.Cash(2002)28Cal.4th703,724.)#֧֧b#Thedefendant   mustofferareasonwhytheprosecutorsreasonswerepretextual;otherwise,heorshedoes   notrebutthepresumptionthattheprosecutorsfaciallyraceneutralreasonswereproper.  (Puckettv.Elem(1995)514U.S.765,768(percuriam);Boydev.Brown(9thCir.2005)404  U.S.1159,1172.)֧֧  #֧֧d#  [W]erelyonthegoodjudgmentoftrialcourtstodistinguishbonafidereasonsfor  suchperemptoriesfromshamexcusesbelatedlycontrivedtoavoidadmittingactsofgroup  discrimination.(֧֧Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,#֧֧?f#282;Peoplev.Johnson(1989)47  Cal.3d1194,1216;seePurkettv.Elem(1995)514U.S.765,768֧֧(percuriam)#֧֧0g#.) This  demandsofthetrialjudgeasincereandreasonedattempttoevaluatetheprosecutors  explanationinlightofthecircumstancesofthecaseasthenknown,hisknowledgeoftrial  techniques,andhisobservationsofthemannerinwhichtheprosecutorhasexamined  membersofthevenireandhasexercisedchallengesforcauseorperemptorily....(People  v.Hall(1983)35Cal.3d161,167168.) [A]trulyreasonedattempttoevaluatethe  prosecutorsexplanations[citations]requiresthecourttoaddressthechallengedjurors   individuallytodeterminewhetheranyoneofthemhasbeenimproperlyexcluded.Inthat ! process,thetrialcourtmustdeterminenotonlythatavalidreasonexistedbutalsothatthe " reasonactuallypromptedtheprosecutorsexercisesoftheparticularperemptorychallenge. # (Peoplev.Fuentes(1991)54Cal.3d707,720;Peoplev.Reynoso(2003)31Cal.4th903, $  929.) % !   Thescopeofthetrialcourt'srequiredinquiryiscurrentlyonreview:֧֧Wherethetrial '"# courtfoundaprimafaciecaseofWheeler/BatsonerrorwithregardtothethirdAfrican (#$ Americanpotentialjurorremovedbytheprosecutorbyperemptorychallenge(Peoplev. )$% Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258;Batsonv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79),wasthecourt *%& requiredtoobtaintheprosecutorsreasonsforremovingeachofthethreeAfricanAmerican +&' potentialjurorsorcouldthecourtlimititsinquirytotheprosecutorsreasonsforthethird  challenge?(Peoplev.Robinson,formerlypublishedat(2004)116Cal.App.4th1302,review  grantedJune9,2004,S123938.)#֧֧l#    Whathappensifthecourtisallegedlyincollusionwiththeprosecutorinexercising  invidiousdiscrimination:֧֧Ispetitionerentitledtoreliefontheclaimsthat(1)thetrialjudge   activelycolludedwiththeprosecutortosecureaconvictionanddeathsentence,and(2)the   prosecutorimproperlyexercisedperemptorychallengesonthebasisofreligionattheadvice   ofthetrialjudge?(InreFreeman,OSCissuedJuly28,2004,S122590;seePeoplev.   Freeman(1994)8Cal.4th450.)#֧֧ip#   ֧֧  Thestatecannotonappealjustifyremovalforreasonsnotgivenbytheprosecutorat   thetime.(Peoplev.McGee(2002)104Cal.App.4th559,571;McClainv.Prunty(9thCir.   2000)217F.3d1209,1220.) [A]prosecutorsimplyhasgottostatehisreasonsasbesthe   canandstandorfallontheplausibilityofthereasonshegave.ABatsonchallengedoesnot  callforamereexerciseinthinkingupanyrationalbasis.Ifthestatedreasondoesnothold  up,itspretextualsignificancedoesnotfadebecauseatrialjudge,oranappellatecourt,can  imagineareasonthatmightnothavebeenshownupasfalse.(MillerElv.Dretke(2005)  545U.S.__[125S.Ct.2317,2332].)    Federalcourtshaveconcludedthatinordertodetermineiftheprosecutor'sreasons  werepretextual,acomparativeanalysisisappropriate. Somestatedreasonsarefalse,and  althoughsomefalsereasonsareshownupwithinthefourcornersofagivencase,sometimes  acourtmaynotbesureunlessitlooksbeyondthecaseathand.HenceBatsonsexplanation  thatadefendantmayrelyonallrelevantcircumstancestoraiseaninferenceofpurposeful  discrimination.(MillerElv.Dretke(2005)545U.S.__[125S.Ct.2317,2325];#֧֧r#id.atpp.  23252330&fn.2[thoughnocomparativeanalysisdoneinstatecourt,removingblack  ֧֧potential#֧֧y#Ԁjurorsbecauseofexpressionofreservationonthedeathpenaltywaspretextual  whenwhitejurorssayingthesamethingremained];֧֧seeMillerElv.Cockrell(2003)537   U.S.322,343[expresslyrelyingoncomparativeanalysis];#֧֧bz#id.atp.֧֧Ԁ339[thecredibilityof ! reasonsgivencanbemeasuredby howreasonable,orhowimprobable,theexplanationsare; " andbywhethertheprofferedrationalehassomebasisinacceptedtrialstrategy];#֧֧-{#seePurkett # v.Elem(1995)514U.S.765,768֧֧(percuriam)#֧֧|#Ԁ[ ifareviewoftherecordunderminesthe $  prosecutorsstatedreasons,ormanyoftheprofferedreasons,thereasonsmaybedeemeda %!! pretextforracialdiscrimination];seealso֧֧ԀHernandezv.UnitedStates(1991)500U.S.352, &"" 363[aprosecutorsmotive mayoftenbeinferredfromthetotalityofrelevantfacts]; '## McClainv.Prunty(9thCir.2000)217F.3d1209,1221;Turnerv.Marshall(9thCir.1997) ($$ 121F.3d1248,12511252[ Acomparativeanalysisofjurorsstruckandthoseremainingis )%% awellestablishedtoolforexploringthepossibilitythatfaciallyraceneutralreasonsarea *&& pretextfordiscrimination.];UnitedStatesv.Chinchilla(9thCir.1989)874F.2d695,699.) +''   TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtstatedtheissueisexhaustedforfederalhabeas  corpuspurposesiftheclaimismadeinthestatesupremecourt,butthefederalcourtscan  consideradditionalevidenceandtheories.(MillerElv.Dretke(2005)545U.S.__[125  S.Ct.2317,2326,fn.2].)ThisappearstohaveimpliedlyoverruledBoydv.Newland(9th   Cir.2004)393F.3d1008atpages1013to1014wheretheNinthCircuitheldthatthefederal   courtonhabeasreviewcannotdocomparativeanalysisforthefirsttime.     Californiacourtshadresisteddoingacomparativeanalysis.(SeePeoplev.Johnson   (2003)30Cal.4th1302,1321,reversedsubnom.Johnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__   [125S.Ct.2410][althoughthetrialcourtmaydoacomparativeanalysis,theappellatecourt   maynotdosoforthefirsttime];cf.Peoplev.Box(2000)23Cal.4th1153,1190[holding   thattheCourtdidnotexpectthetrialjudgetodoacomparativeanalysis].)NowCalifornia   courtsrecognizethattheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasreliedoncomparativeanalysisin  reviewofstateconvictions,evenwhenthestatecourthadrefusedtoengageincomparative  analysis.Thestatecourtsnowappeartobemorewillingtodoit: TheUnitedStates  SupremeCourtrecentlyheldthatanappealscourtshouldscrutinizeaprosecutorsreasonfor  exercisinghisorperemptorychallengeanddeterminewhetherthosereasonswereapplied  equallytootherjurors,inordertoassessthecredibilityoftheprosecutionsexpressed  motivations.(Peoplev.Gray(2005)37Cal.4th168,188189,relyingonMillerElv.  Dretke(2005)545U.S.__[125S.Ct.2317].)    Itmaybepossibletoshowpretextwhentheprosecutorquestionedminoritypotential  jurorsmoreclosely(MillerElv.Dretke(2005)545U.S.__[125S.Ct.2317,2334,2336];  seealsoMillerElv.Cockrell(2003)537U.S.322,344),therewasdiscriminatoryimpact  #֧֧}#(Id.,atp.֧֧Ԁ345),oranhistoricalpatternofdiscrimination#֧֧~#(Id.,atp.֧֧Ԁ346).    Aplaceofresidencethatispredominantlypopulatedbyminoritiescanbeapretext   forremovingpotentialjurorsforracialreasons.(UnitedStatesv.Bishop(9thCir.1992)959 ! F.2d820,825826.) "   APPELLATEREVIEW  $    1.PreparationoftheRecord  &!"   #֧֧#  Whenatrialcourtdeniesa  Wheeler,  motionbecauseitfindsnoprimafaciecase '"# ofgroupbiaswasestablished,thereviewingcourtconsiderstheentirerecordofvoirdire. (#$ (  Peoplev.Davenport4  (1995)11Cal.4th1171,1200.)֧֧ )$%   Whatisthecourt'sresponsibilityinpresentingacompleterecordofthevoirdire? +&' (SeeKesserv.Cambra(9thCir.2004,No.0215475)formerlyat392F.3d327,342343,  rehearingenbancgrantedOct.14,2005;Leahyv.Farmon(9thCir.2004,No.0117467)115  Fed.Appx.403,rehearingenbancgrantedOct.14,2005.)    2.PreservationoftheIssue     #֧֧#Thedefendantwaivestheclaimifheorshefailstomakeatimelyobjectionanda   recordsufficientforappellantreview.(֧֧Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,280;#֧֧#Ԁ֧֧People   v.Morris(2003)107Cal.App.4th402,408409#֧֧ #.)However,anobjectiononstateground   ( Wheeler)preservesthefederalBatsonclaim.(Peoplev.Yeoman(2003)31Cal.4th93,   117.)Aslightdelayinmakingthemotionwithjustificationmightbesufficienttopreserve    theissue.(SeePeoplev.Roldan(2005)35Cal.4th64635,701702[motionwastimelywhen   madeimmediatelyafterdefendantexercisedaperemptorychallengeaftertheprosecutor   madethedisputedperemptorychallengeanddefendantgaveareasonfordelay].)   Nonetheless,themotionmustbemadebeforeswearinginthealternatejurors.(Peoplev.   McDermott(2002)28Cal.4th946,969;Peoplev.Rodriguez(1996)50Cal.App.4th1013;   Peoplev.Perez(1996)48Cal.App.4th1310,1314.)֧֧    Theremustbeamotiontoencompasseachchallengedperemptorychallenge.(See  Peoplev.McDermott(2002)28Cal.4th946,969970;Peoplev.Irvin(1996)46Cal.App.4th  1340,1351.)    Themotionmustbeonsamegroundsraisedonappeal.(Peoplev.Cornwell(2005)  37Cal.4th50,70,fn.4[argumentonblackfemaleswaivedwhenobjectionconcernedonly  blacks];Peoplev.Cleveland(2004)32Cal.4th704,734[argumentonblackfemaleswaived  whentheobjectionconcernedonlyblacks].)    3.StandardofReview     Reviewofstepone:Whenthesuperiorcourtfindsaprimafaciecasewasnotmade,  theappellatecourtconsiderstheentirerecordofvoirdireandaffirmsiftherewassubstantial   evidence. Whenthetrialcourtunderthesecircumstancesrulesthatnoprimafaciecasehas ! beenmade,thereviewingcourtconsiderstheentirerecordofvoirdire.[Citation.] Ifthe " recordsuggestsgroundsuponwhichtheprosecutormightreasonablyhavechallengedthe # jurorsinquestion,werejectthechallenge.(Peoplev.Welch(1999)20Cal.4th701,746, $  quoting#֧֧/#  Peoplev.Davenport8  (1995)11Cal.4th1171,1200֧֧Ԁ[evenifthecourtheardthe % ! prosecutorsreasons];accord,Peoplev.Gray(2005)37Cal.4th168,186;Peoplev.Griffin &!" (2004)33Cal.4th536,555&fn.5[overrulingpriorcasesapplyingtheabuseofdiscretion '"# standard].) (#$   Further,Californiacourtshaveheldthat [w]henatrialcourtexpresslyrulesthata +&' primafaciecasewasnotmade,butallowstheprosecutortostatehisorherjustificationsfor  therecord,theissueofwhetheraprimafaciecasewasmadeisnotmoot.[Citations.]  Rather, whenanappellatecourtispresentedwithsucharecord,andconcludesthatthetrial  courtproperlydeterminedthatnoprimafaciecasewasmade,itneednotreviewthe  adequacyofcounsel'sjustificationsfortheperemptorychallenges.[Citation.](Peoplev.  Box(2000)23Cal.4th1153,1188;accord,Peoplev.Gutierrez(2002)28Cal.4th1083,   11221123.)Butmostcourtsholdthat [o]nceaprosecutorhasofferedaraceneutral   explanationfortheperemptorychallengesandthetrialcourthasruledontheultimate   questionofintentionaldiscrimination,thepreliminaryissueofwhetherthedefendanthad   madeaprimafacieshowingbecomesmoot.(#֧֧#Hernandezv.NewYork(1991)500U.S.352,   359(pluropn.);see֧֧Peoplev.Boyette(2002)29Cal.4th381,468(dis.opn.ofKennard,J.);   seealso#֧֧4#Peoplev.Sims(1993)5Cal.4th405,453;֧֧Peoplev.Hayes(1990)52Cal.3d577,   605.)󚀀Recently,however,theCaliforniaSupremeCourthasdisagreedwiththemajority   view,statingthatsimplyaskingtheprosecutorforajustificationforthechallengedoesnot   implythedefendantmadeaprimafaciecase.(Boyette,supra,atp.422;Peoplev.Farnam  (2002)28Cal.4th107,136;butseePeoplev.Gutierrez(2002)28Cal.4th1083,11221123  [#֧֧#thetrialcourtimmediatelyaskingtheprosecutorfor֧֧Ԁanexplanationisconductimplyinga  findingofaprimafaciecase].)    Reviewofsteptwo: ThesecondBatsonstepanswersalegal,notafactualquestion.  Theappellatecourtisrequiredtoindependentlyreviewthosecommentstodetermine  whethertheyevinceddiscriminatoryintent.(Williamsv.Rhodes(9thCir.2004)354  F.3d1101,1108,citingTolbertv.Page(9thCir.1999)182F.3d677,680,fn.5;seealso  UnitedStatesv.Alanis(9thCir.2003)335F.3d965,967,fn.1[whetherthecourterredin  notdoingastepthreeanalysisisreviewedindependently].)    Reviewofstepthree:Ifthesuperiorcourtfindsaprimafaciecase,theappellatecourt  neednotlookatwhethertherewasaprimafaciecase,anditreviewstherecordfor  substantialevidence.(Peoplev.Ervin(2000)22Cal.4th48,74;Peoplev.Arias(1996)13   Cal.4th92,135;seePeoplev.Silva(2001)25Cal.4th345,385386;Peoplev.Johnson ! (1989)47Cal.3d1194,12161217;Peoplev.Perez(1994)29Cal.App.4th1313,1327; " UnitedStatesv.Bishop(9thCir.1992)959F.2d820,824.)Whetherthetrialcourtmadea # sincereandreasonedefforttoscrutinizetheprosecution'sreasonsisafactualquestion. $  (MillerElv.Cockrell(2003)537U.S.332,339[clearerror];Hernandezv.NewYork(1991) %!! 500U.S.352,365[whetherprosecutorsreasonsweresincereisanissueoffactbecause &""  [t]hedecisivequestionwillbewhethercounselsraceneutralexplanationforaperemptory '## challengeshouldbebelieved];Batsonv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79,98,fn.21[ Since ($$ thetrialcourtsfindingsinthecontextunderconsiderationherelargelywillturnon )%% evaluationofcredibility,areviewingcourtordinarilyshouldgivethosefindingsgreat *&& deference.];Peoplev.Gutierrez(2002)28Cal.4th1083,1126;Peoplev.Wheeler_(1978) +'' 22Cal.3d258,282;Peoplev.Allen(2004)115_Cal.App_.4th542,549.)    Theappellatecourtexercises greatrestraint(Peoplev._Ervin_(2000)22Cal.4th48,  74.)Theappellatecourtaccords greatrestraint,however, onlywhenthetrialcourthas  madeasincereandreasonedattempttoevaluateeachstatedreasonsasappliedtoeach  challengedjuror.[Citations.]Whentheprosecutorsstatedreasonsarebothinherently   plausibleandsupportedbytherecord,thetrialcourtneednotquestiontheprosecutionor   makedetailedfindingsButwhentheprosecutorsstatedreasonsareeitherunsupportedby   therecord,inherentlyimplausible,orboth,moreisrequiredofthetrialcourtthananglobal   findingthatthereasonsappearsufficient.(Peoplev.Silva(2001)25Cal.4th345,385386.)    Notwithstandingthedeferencewegivetoatrialcourtsdeterminationsofcredibilityand   sincerity,wecanonlydosowhenthecourthasclearlyexpresseditsfindingsandrulingsand   thebasestherefore.(Peoplev._Reynoso_(2003)31Cal.4th903,923,internalquotation   marksomitted[simplysayingjurordemeanorwithoutadescriptionwasinsufficient].)     4.StandardofPrejudice   #֧֧#  Wheeler_Batson_errorisreversibleperse.(Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,  283;֧֧seeMillerElv._Dretke_(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2317,2332].)#֧֧#    5.Remedy   ֧֧  Errorinstepone:Whenthetrialcourterroneouslyfindstherewasnotaprimafacie  case,thematterisoftenremandedforprosecutortostatereasonsforperemptorychallenge.  (_Batson_Ԁv.Kentucky(1986)476U.S.79,100;Peoplev.McGee(2002)104_Cal.App_.4th559,  571,573[remandtopermitprosecutorgivereasons].)Thisremedyhasbeencriticizedfor  tworeasons.First,thelongpassageoftimemakesitnearlyimpossiblefortheprosecutorto  genuinelyremembertherealreason.(Peoplev.Hall(1983)35Cal.3d161,171[pointless  toremandfortheprosecutortogiveareason11yearslater];Peoplev.Allen(2004)115  _Cal.App_.4th542,553554,fn.10[remandfornewtrial,notfortheprosecutortogive  reasons,becauseoccurredthreeyearsago];seealsoPeoplev._Ayala_(2000)24Cal.4th243,   297,fn.8(conc._opn_.ofGeorge,C.J.);Peoplev.Robinson(2003)110_Cal.App_.4th1196, ! 1208[remandfortheprosecutortogivethereasonbutretrialifitcouldnotrecall];People " v.Williams(2000)78_Cal.App_.4th1118,1130[onremand,thecourtmustfirstdetermineif # itcanadequatelyaddresstheissueafterthedelay];UnitedStatesv._Alcantar_(9thCir.1990) $  897F.2d436,438439.)Second,thisprocedureissubjecttoaprosecutortryingtoinvent % ! morelegitimatereasonsafterthefact.(See,e.g., MillerElv._Dretke_(2005)545U.S.__[125 &!" _S.Ct_.2317,2328[prosecutionsreasonsafterthefact reeksofafterthought];MillerElv. '"# _Cockrell_(2003)537U.S.322,343[reasonsgivenaftertrial wassubjecttotheusualrisks (#$ ofimprecisionanddistortionsfromthepassageoftime];seealsoJohnsonv.California )$% (2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410,2418],quoting_Paulino_Ԁv.Castro#֧֧#(9thCir.֧֧Ԁ2004)371 *%& F.3d1082,1090[ itdoesnotmatterthattheprosecutionmighthavehadgoodreasons#֧֧7#...֧֧ +&' [_w]hat_Ԁmattersistherealreasontheywerestricken].)Thisissueiscurrentlyonreview.(See  Johnsonv.California(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2410,2416],onremandNov.16,2005,  S127602;Peoplev._Ibarra_[_nonpub_._opn_.],reviewgrantedJune9,2004,S124067.)    Errorinstepthree:Whenthetrialcourtfailstosustainmotionaftertheprosecutor  givesreason,errornormallyrequiresnewtrial.(#֧֧#Peoplev.Wheeler(1978)22Cal.3d258,   283;֧֧seeMillerElv._Dretke_(2005)545U.S.__[125_S.Ct_.2317,2332].)However,the   defendantinthetrialcourtcanstipulatetoadifferentremedy.(Peoplev.Willis(2002)27   Cal.4th811,821824[withconsentof_movant_,canuseotherremediessuchassanctions,re   instatingremovedjurorsordoingchallengesatsidebar];Peoplev._Overby_(2004)124   _Cal.App_.4th1237,12441245[defendantnotobjectingtojudgereseatingtheexcusedjuror   indicatesconsenttothisremedy].)   #֧֧J# ֧֧2#֧ ֧#.#֧ گ#.