What is the test for striking a jury in a civil case?

To protect a defendant's constitutional rights to equal protection and a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community, the prosecutor's peremptory challenges may not be based on group bias. (People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 469.) "[T]he unconstitutional exclusion of even a single juror on improper grounds of . . . group bias requires . . . reversal of the judgment . . . ." (People v. Reynoso (2003) 31 Cal.4th 903, 927, fn. 8.) If the defendant makes a prima facie showing of a discriminatory purpose for the prosecutor's peremptory challenges, the burden shifts to the prosecutor to offer nondiscriminatory justifications for striking the jurors. (People v. Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 469.) If the prosecutor presents nondiscriminatory explanations, the trial court must then decide whether the defendant has proved purposeful discrimination. (Ibid.)

The prosecutor's justification for a peremptory challenge need not rise to the level of a challenge for cause, and even a trivial reason or hunch, if genuine and neutral, will suffice. (People v. Lenix (2008) 44 Cal.4th 602, 613.) When deciding whether the defendant has shown purposeful discrimination, the trial court must determine whether the prosecutor's reasons are sincere and legitimate, or whether they are "implausible or fantastic justifications" serving as pretexts for a discriminatory purpose. (People v. Reynoso, supra, 31 Cal.4th at pp. 916, 924.)

The trial court's findings on purposeful discrimination turn largely on credibility, and on appeal we review the court's ruling for substantial evidence. (People v. Lenix, supra, 44 Cal.4th at pp. 613-614.) " 'We presume that a prosecutor uses peremptory challenges in a constitutional manner and give great deference to the trial court's ability

Page 7