stated reasons were race neutral and without proceeding to the third step of passing which was its affirmative duty to make a decision on the ultimate issue of whether purposeful discrimination was at play  here well your honor the supreme court has stated that there is a third step that the trial court must go beyond just of race neutrality finding and must make a purposeful decision after a sincere and reasoned inquiry into whether it's the burden of the defended is it not to at that point to show that the reasons are pretext will and i don't see i don't see anything in this record i record pretty carefully were trial counsel said well maybe your honor that may sound racially neutral but i want to do a comparative  well but that should be original motion i read the original motion is your honor i want to make a batson motion correct so can you point me to anything in this record where at trial trial counsel said ok your honor you've completed step two but there's another step here and i've got searching inquiry and looking very hard at it but i don't know that we've ever said that if the defendant is silent and doesn't make a claim of pretext that the trial court has an obligation on its own to to make findings on it  so that perhaps not in those perhaps not but in the us yellowness case which is a gender discrimination case the trial court made a ruling that the reasons provided were race neutral and were plausible and  think we're in the same place and that cases i read it to defend or the objecting party also set a trial your honor i've got evidence or proof i've got a claim pretext but let's assume that because the court of appeals treated it here it's in front of us what's your claim with respect to the court of appeal decision first that the court of appeals determination that the trial court had me a sincere and reasoned inquiry is unsupportable by the record after the first pass in motion the trial court simply stated the reasons  and found that there were reasons to support the reason shyly finding it then did engage in some comparative analysis with respect to of the sworn jurors it's been a brief amount of time highlighting certain factors that the trial court might have we're looking at whether that was an unusual application supreme court case or and determination of the facts so as your argument that the california court of appeals baths and determination listen i'm reasonable determination of the facts my progeny including miller and why was it contrary to your saying it's an unreasonable application are contrary to the one claim correct and you're saying it's contrary to miller ason yes and what trial the court of appeal in finding the critical did not recognize the trial court's error and as a result that that the court of appeals decision is also contrary to the law and also constitutes an among other things even if he now will now look at the record and we determine on this record that the reasons were not pretextual can the court of appeals do that what was its mistake its mistake is that the trial court did not engage in any analysis and when trial on the record and when that record is silent we can presume that it didn't engage in any we can also look at the other direct and circumstantial evidence in the record of discrimination including the prosecution's failure to engage in any questioning with any of the structures on the allegedly objectionable factors we can also look at the comparative analysis which shows that sworn jurors had the same characteristics as those deemed of gestural by the prosecutor in the structures including in particular you under tourists whose only objection that the his little regards to mr torres he said yes that was real clear that the print pre strike was not based on race the fact that he had two brothers that were involved in gangs clearly any prosecutor would not leave sensitive factual inquiry the requirement is not that the trial court place that inquiry on the record and in fact in the state of california law a trial court is not required to make explicit and detailed factual findings for the record in every instance the gr that's pretty clear but as to other folks he simply says the court finds that the prosecutor is race neutral reasons for excluding those particular jurors i'm looking at one fifty five i think of your excerpts of record that has to do with sierra and opponent quoted at least part of his progeny say look there it's a three step process not a two step process in a race neutral reason is necessary but not sufficient because it could be prete l if i challenge everybody in the jury who has whose family has convictions that are hispanic but not any of the anglos whose families have convictions that it's a race neutral reason but it might well be pretextual doesn't doesn't batson really require th fail to excuse those people but and one of my problems of course is the defense never says their protection will song i did judge may not have had the opportunity but it doesn't have to go on and say the least with respect to the first that i find just wasn't pretextual there are good reasons he says that you shall if these people now the defense should have an opportunity to show protection it's the defense burden to print this pick the judge give them an opportunity to show pretext case that says that either i assume there's no case that says that is enough ok there is no case that says you need to do more and we're looking for clearly established law and since we do not have clearly established law requiring the trial court to do more than it either way there's not a case that says the court of appeals can't be theirs or not that i'm aware of your honor and i've read many cases where the court of appeal does in fact engage in determining whether the third step was properly completed by the trial court not in fact and just briefly honor's i'm looking at the actual record of purposeful discrimination in this case one of the victims and prosecution witnesses based on surnames from the record were hispanic and this would tend to undercut the juror number eight zero one said blatantly pro prosecution statements as detailed in the record juror number eight zero three you see in the first three numbers she was the victim of a crime which distinguished her greatly from any of the other excuse jurors juror number nine  four had a nice that worked in the court and a son in law who's a police officer which distinguish her and your number eight nine two he had a thirty five year old dui which certainly wouldn't have given any reasonable prosecutor much mich