What are the requirements of a trial court to determine whether a jury has been found to have been prejudiced by a prosecutor's explanation?

The trial court's responsibilities in this phase of a Wheeler motion are set out in People v. Hall, supra, 35 Cal.3d 161, 167-168, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854: "[I]t is imperative, if the constitutional guarantee is to have real meaning, that once a prima facie case of group bias appears the allegedly offending party be required to come forward with explanation to the court that demonstrates other bases for the challenges, and that the court satisfy itself that the explanation is genuine. This demands of the trial judge a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor's explanation in light of the circumstances of the case as then known, his knowledge of trial techniques, and his observations of the manner in which the prosecutor has examined members of the venire and has exercised challenges for cause or peremptorily...."

In People v. Hall, supra, we concluded that the trial court had made no serious attempt to evaluate the bona fides of the prosecutor's explanations. (35 Cal.3d at p. 168, 197 Cal.Rptr. 71, 672 P.2d 854.) In this case, as we shall explain, the trial court did make some effort to evaluate the prosecutor's explanations, but the court evaluated them only in the abstract. The court did not determine whether the "bona fide" or the "sham" reasons actually applied to particular challenged jurors. For this reason, the trial court did not satisfy its Wheeler obligation of inquiry and evaluation, and the judgment must therefore be reversed.