What is the burden on a prosecutor to provide a non-discriminatory reason for exercising a peremptory challenge?

Once a defendant establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to provide a non-discriminatory reason for exercising the peremptory challenge. The prosecutor "'need only offer a genuine, reasonably specific, race-or group-neutral explanation related to the particular case being tried. [Citations.] The justification need not support a challenge for cause, and even a "trivial" reason, if genuine and neutral, will suffice. [Citation.]'" (People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 74-75.) "'We review a trial court's determination regarding the sufficiency of a prosecutor's justifications for exercising peremptory challenges "'with great restraint.'" [Citation.] We presume that a prosecutor uses peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner and give great deference to the trial court's ability to distinguish bona fide reasons from sham excuses. [Citation.] So long as the trial court makes a sincere and reasoned effort to evaluate the

Page 19

nondiscriminatory justifications offered, its conclusions are entitled to deference on appeal. [Citations.]'" (People v. Lenix (2008) 44 Cal.4th 602, 613-614, fn. omitted.)