What is the burden of persuasion against a party opposing a peremptory challenge?

step of the Batson/Wheeler inquiry, the trial court must determine whether the party opposing the peremptory challenge (in this case, the prosecution) has proven purposeful discrimination. However, after the defense explained its race-neutral reason for excusing juror No. 11, the trial court never turned to the prosecution for a response. In fact, apart from her initial statement that she was "concerned" about a possible defense pattern of striking Asian-American jurors, the prosecutor did not offer any argument in support of her Wheeler motion, nor was she asked to do so by the court. Instead, the trial court told defense counsel that, because juror No. 11 was in a protected class, it had to determine whether the defense had "substantially rebutted any race-based [reason] for keeping him as a juror." In essence, the trial court combined the second and third steps of the Batson/Wheeler inquiry and placed the burden on the defense both to provide a race-neutral reason for the peremptory challenge and to prove that the proffered reason was not pretextual. Because "[t]he ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike," this was error. (People v. Lenix, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 612-613.)