What is the burden of persuasion against improper motivation?

"The ultimate burden of persuasion regarding [improper] motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of the strike." (People v. Lenix (2008) 44 Cal.4th 602, 612-613 (Lenix); see also Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. 162, 170-171.)

Here, the People do not dispute the trial court's step one finding that a prima facie case had been established. Thus, "[a]t step two of the analysis, the prosecutor 'must provide a "'clear and reasonably specific' explanation of his 'legitimate reasons' for exercising the challenges." [Citation.] "The justification need not support a challenge for cause, and even a 'trivial' reason, if genuine and neutral, will suffice." [Citation.] A prospective juror may be excused based upon facial expressions, gestures, hunches, and even for arbitrary or idiosyncratic reasons.'" (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 434.) Satisfying step two, the court requested the prosecutor to explain why she excused the two jurors Melgoza identified as showing discriminatory motivations, and she did so.