party exercising challenge in California

2026(People v. Santos Martinez, supra, B331242.) 8 Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler). 13 juror’s [actual or perceived] race,” as well as six other protected groups. (§ 231.7, subds. (a), (i).) Once an objection to a peremptory challenge is made, the party exercising the challenge must “state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised.” (Id., subd. (c).) The court shall then “evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. … If the court determines there is a

2026(People v. Santos Martinez, supra, B331242.) 8 Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler). 13 juror’s [actual or perceived] race,” as well as six other protected groups. (§ 231.7, subds. (a), (i).) Once an objection to a peremptory challenge is made, the party exercising the challenge must “state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised.” (Id., subd. (c).) The court shall then “evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. … If the court determines there is a

2026(People v. Santos Martinez, supra, B331242.) 8 Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler). 13 juror’s [actual or perceived] race,” as well as six other protected groups. (§ 231.7, subds. (a), (i).) Once an objection to a peremptory challenge is made, the party exercising the challenge must “state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised.” (Id., subd. (c).) The court shall then “evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. … If the court determines there is a

2026(People v. Santos Martinez, supra, B331242.) 8 Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 (Batson) and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 (Wheeler). 13 juror’s [actual or perceived] race,” as well as six other protected groups. (§ 231.7, subds. (a), (i).) Once an objection to a peremptory challenge is made, the party exercising the challenge must “state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised.” (Id., subd. (c).) The court shall then “evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. … If the court determines there is a

2023(See People v. Booker (2011) 51 Cal.4th 141, 166 .) A colloquy such as that which occurred 30 here injects additional uncertainty into the genuineness of the party’s reasons for exercising a challenge.

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2006Third, the trial court must decide whether the complaining party has proved purposeful discrimination. ( Johnson v. California (2005) 545 U.S. ___ , 125 S.Ct. 2410, 2416 , 162 L.Ed.2d 129 ; Purkett v. Elem (1995) 514 U.S. 765, 767 , 115 S.Ct. 1769 , 131 L.Ed.2d 834 ; People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 384 , 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93 , 21 P.3d 769 .) By asking the prosecutor to explain the peremptory challenges, the trial court here implicitly found that defendant had made a prima facie showing of impermissible discrimination in the exercise of peremptory challenges. ( People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal

2002“Code of Civil Procedure section 170.6 provides in substance that any party or attorney to a civil or criminal action may make an oral or written motion to disqualify the *806 assigned judge, supported by an affidavit that the judge is prejudiced against such party or attorney or the interest thereof so that the affiant cannot or believes he cannot have an impartial trial. . . . [Tjhere are strict limits on the timing and number of such motions; but if the motion is timely and in proper form, the judge must recuse himself without further proof and the case must be reassigned to another judge.”