What is the standard of appellate review applicable to an adverse first-step Batson determination?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 97 (1986), the Court set forth a three-step ‘ protocol to prevent racial discrimination in jury selection. It applies whenever an objection is made to the use of a peremptory challenge in any jury trial in state or federal court, in both civil and criminal cases. In Batson’s first step, the objecting party must make a prima facie showing that the totality of relevant facts give rise to an inference of discriminatory purpose. This showing is not onerous and the inference may be satisfied circumstantially. In the second and third steps, the burden shifts to the striking party to explain actual race-neutral reasons for the strike, and the trial court evaluates if the stated reasons are pretextual. The trial court may only deny the Batson objection, without conducting the second and third : steps, if it determines that the objector has failed to make a prima facie showing of discrimination. An adverse first-step determination is subject to review on direct appeal. The Nation’s courts are intractably divided about the standard of appellate review applicable to an adverse first-step determination. Four federal circuits and five states have applied de novo review, while three federal circuits and three states apply a highly deferential clearly-erroneous standard. Does de novo review apply, as the First, Third, Seventh and Tenth federal circuits hold, a standard shared by the states of Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Tennessee, and Utah? Or, is the trial court’s step-one determination subject only to the clearly erroneous standard of review, as the Eleventh Circuit ruled here, a standard shared by the Fifth and Ninth federal circuits, as well as the states of Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin? i