What is the current state of the law on the meaning of "very close" comment by a trial court?

standard had already been satisfied or surpassed. Todays opinion then says, "It is not clear the trial court meant it as a commentary on how suspicious (or not) the prior strikes had been, given the totality of the circumstances." (Id. at pp. 496-497, 453 P.3d at pp. 125-126) But what else could the trial court have meant? Next, todays opinion says, "nor is it apparent that the court implied the existence of a prima facie case under a reasonable inference standard." (Ibid. ) But the same thing could have been said of the trial court in Johnson v. California , and yet the natural meaning of its "very close" comment was readily discerned and credited by the high court. (See Johnson v. California , supra , 545 U.S. at p. 173, 125 S.Ct. 2410.)