If a trial court legally errs at step three of Batson, may an appellate court resolve the factual question of whether a party acted with discriminatory intent?

QUESTION PRESENTED Under the third step of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), a trial court must determine whether one party exercised a peremptory strike with a discriminatory intent. If a trial court legally errs at this step, every court of appeals except the Ninth Circuit remands for the lower correct to reconsider its decision under the correct legal standard. The Ninth Circuit, by contrast, believes it has the discretionary authority to conduct appellate fact-finding and “decide de novo” under a totality of the circumstances whether the strike was motivated by purposeful discrimination. United States v. Alvarez-Ulloa, 784 F.3d 558, 565-66 (9th Cir. 2015). The question presented is: If a trial court legally errs at step three of Batson, may an appellate court resolve the factual question of whether a party acted with discriminatory intent? prefix