When a trial court denies a Batson motion as to one juror at step one and then, in response to a second Batson motion as to a subsequently struck juror of the same race or ethnicity, the prosecutor gives reasons for striking both jurors at step two, must the trial court make a step-three finding as to the first juror?

Question Presented Batson v. Kentucky established a three-step process for evaluating a claim that the government made a peremptory strike in a manner violating the Constitution: first, the defendant must make a prima facie showing that the government exercised the strike for a discriminatory purpose; second, the government must articulate a neutral, non-discriminatory reason for striking the juror; and third, the trial court must decide whether the defendant has carried his burden to prove purposeful discrimination given the totality of the circumstances. 476 U.S. 79, 9398 (1986). The question presented is: When a trial court denies a Batson motion as to one juror at step one and then, in response to a second Batson motion as to a subsequently struck juror of the same race or ethnicity, the prosecutor gives reasons for striking both jurors at step two, must the trial court make a step-three finding as to the first juror? ii