Cooper v. State, 432 P.3d 202

James Cooper was charged with child abuse/neglect and two counts of domestic-violence battery; jury selection followed and the State exercised five peremptory strikes.
The State used two peremptory strikes to remove two African-American prospective jurors (Juror Nos. 217 and 274); the venire had 23 members, 3 of whom were African American (13.04%).
Cooper objected under Batson, arguing the strikes reflected a pattern against African Americans and that the struck jurors said they could be fair; the State declined to give reasons because the district court did not find a prima facie case.
The district court denied the Batson challenge at step one, concluding Cooper had not made a prima facie showing and mentioning it could imagine nonracial reasons for the strikes but did not solicit the State’s explanations.
The Nevada Supreme Court held the district court clearly erred at Batson step one because the proportion of strikes (40% of State’s strikes removing 67% of African Americans) produced an inference of discrimination; the record lacked the State’s race-neutral reasons and the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The opinion also flagged the prosecutor’s voir dire question about Black Lives Matter as of minimal relevance and potentially race-tinged, which reinforced the inference of discrimination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant made a Batson step-one prima facie showing of racial discrimination in peremptory strikes	Cooper: the totality of facts (strikes against 2 of 3 African Americans; struck jurors said they could be fair; pattern/disproportionate effect; race-tinged voir dire) gives rise to an inference of discrimination	State: no prima facie showing; two African-American males were excused for cause; the State need not explain strikes absent a prima facie finding	Held: Reversed — court erred at step one; disproportionate use of strikes and voir dire question supported inference; remand for new trial

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race-based peremptory strikes; three-step framework)
Watson v. State, 130 Nev. 764 (Nev.) (clarifies Batson step-one is not onerous and identifies evidence types that can support an inference)
Diomampo v. State, 124 Nev. 414 (Nev.) (Equal Protection prohibits race-based peremptory strikes)
Kaczmarek v. State, 120 Nev. 314 (Nev.) (adoption/use of Batson three-step test in Nevada)
Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (U.S.) (warns against judicial speculation; Batson framework designed to elicit actual answers)
Fernandez v. Roe, 286 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.) (example where disproportionate strikes established prima facie case)
Turner v. Marshall, 63 F.3d 807 (9th Cir.) (example finding prima facie case from removal pattern)
Shirley v. Yates, 807 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir.) (noting removing all/most jurors of defendant’s race often suffices for prima facie showing)
Valdez v. People, 966 P.2d 587 (Colo.) (criticizing race-tinged voir dire questions as irrelevant and problematic)