How have the courts interpreted the Prosecutor's explanation of his peremptory challenge?

Finally, defendant argues that the trial court devoted insufficient attention to the prosecutor's explanation of his peremptory challenges. Defendant relies on People v. Hall (1983) 35 Cal.3d 161, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854, in which we stated that the court must make a "sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor's explanation" in order to [52 Cal.3d 939] "satisfy itself that the explanation is genuine." (Id., at p. 167, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854.) However, since the prosecutor explained that the prospective jurors' opposition to the death penalty was the primary basis for his peremptory challenges, and since defense counsel himself had argued that each of the excluded Black prospective jurors was opposed to the death penalty, there was no reason to doubt that the prosecutor's explanation was genuine.