Although the prosecutor failed to offer a gender-neutral explanation for her preemptory challenge of a female juror, a California state court reasonably found that the defendant did not meet his burden under Batson. The prosecutor provided neutral reasons for the striking of seven female jurors, but could not recall why she had struck one juror. The trial court found that there had been no systematic exclusion, and the state appellate court affirmed. A federal district court issued a writ of habeas corpus, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the third prong of the Batson test – the finding of discriminatory intent – had not been satisfied. The prosecutor’s inability to recall her reasons for striking the juror did not relieve the defendant of his ultimate burden of persuasion. The state appellate court’s application of Batson to the facts of the case was not unreasonable.