What is the test for determining the credibility of a prosecutor in a criminal case?

Relying largely on People v. Silva (2001) 25 Cal.4th 345, 385386, 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 93, 21 P.3d 769, defendant argues that we should not defer to the trial court's

[247 P.3d 96]

ruling because, after hearing from the prosecutor, it simply denied the motion without further discussion, which, defendant contends, shows that it did not make a sincere and reasoned attempt to evaluate the prosecutor's credibility. We disagree. As we explained in response to a similar argument in People v. Lewis (2008) 43 Cal.4th 415, 471, 75 Cal.Rptr.3d 588, 181 P.3d 947, the court denied the motions only after observing the relevant voir dire and listening to the prosecutor's reasons supporting each strike and to any defense argument supporting the motions. Nothing in the record suggests that the trial court either was unaware of its duty to evaluate the credibility of the prosecutor's reasons or that it failed to fulfill that duty. Here, the court asked the prosecutor one question during his explanation. Additionally, it invited defense counsel to comment on the prosecutor's explanation. Defense counsel declined to comment, thus suggesting he found the prosecutor credible. Under the circumstances, the court was not required to do more than what it did.