[I] On appeal, Jenkins contendsthe verdictshould be set aside because the prosecutor antialevidence. The inquiry advances in three staqes. If these stages and steps are be pretexts for purposeful cliscrimination."si4 U.s. at T68. On apperl, Jenlains arqued the district coort's procedure regarding the strikes of J.C-and N.P. followed the form of the first two steps of the atson procedure, yet completely failed to address the third step, requirinqias the mini mal remedy, the case be remanded to the district court to perform the proper analysis e full Batson framework.Generally, when 3 district court skips, collapses prematurely ends Batson's thind step in making it ruling, the remedy is to remenel th beck to'the district coort for proper analysis, as that largely credibility-based dete nination rest best with the district court.See Porkett V. E1em, 514 U.S.765,770,115 S. Ct. 1 9, 13i L.Ed. 2d 834(1995)(Remandinq C0se with direct this case, . because there is no necord to be reviewed by the appellate court, we are therefore required to remand for a proper Batson hearing.")
Should the lower court followed the above case law instead of making a ruling based upon the poor record produced by the trial lawyers?
The lower courts provided:"the comments wcre not directlytied to trial testimony unlive Doy le-."Since the arqument was not linked to trial testimony,did the prosecutor tnflcme the jury resultingin a verdict based on something other than evidence? Did the pros ecutor shift the burden of proof? The prosecutor is testifying. comparing Jenkms and Winters post arrest silence with Hashi and Jara. This testimony wzs not prow ided through cross-examination of Jenkins or winters, so should if have been considered by the Jury? Jenkins and winters involled thelr rights to remain silents. They gave their side of the event ot trial. The prosecutor saying that no one on the otherside could explarn until ten months later qave the Jury somethimng otherthen trial testimory to hang therr hats on. U.S. v. Canon, 88 F.3d 149s HN4:"An improper argument is less likely to have affected the verdict in a case when the evidence is overwheliming than in a case where the evicence ts weak. There were a number of discrepancies accross the state's witnessess aceounts. In a wideo~taped statemeint taken shorthy after the events, Hashi outlined for investigators what happented. He identified his passport and a set of keys as among the items taken from him, although he later found weak. Did the prosecutor lend credibility to his case during closing arqument? U.S. v. CannontN4 : ("A sinale mistep on the part of the prosecutor may be so destructive of the right to a fair trial that reversal is mandated.")

[3] Should Battery hove been alesser included jury instruction?

[43 Did cumulative errordeny Jenkins of a fair trial?

Whether the trial court erred in denying Jenkins' Batson challenge during jury selection