Opinion ID: 3012794
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Dual Motivation Analysis

Text: DeJesus argues that the District Court erred by failing to apply the dual motivation analysis to his Batson claim. Because DeJesus did not raise this issue below, we consider this argument under the plain error standard of review. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993). In Gattis v. Snyder, we held that dual motivation analysis is appropriate in addressing a Batson challenge when the prosecutor offers both discriminatory and non- discriminatory explanations for the strike. 278 F.3d 222, 18 234-35 (3d Cir. 2002). Here, the government offered two reasons for striking Bates — his body language and heightened religiosity — and two reasons for striking McBride — his willingness to forgive and heightened religiosity. As we explained in the previous two sections of this opinion, we conclude that the District Court did not err in finding each of the government’s reasons to be nondiscriminatory. Therefore, the District Court did not err in failing to sua sponte conduct a dual motivation analysis.