Peremptory ≠ permission — §231.7 means you better back it up.

In People v. Hinojos, the Second Appellate District upheld a trial court’s decision to block a defense peremptory challenge under California Code of Civil Procedure §231.7, California’s expansion of Batson-style protections. Defense counsel had attempted to strike Juror No. 10, who appeared White or Hispanic, citing a lack of voir dire about gangs. But the trial court wasn’t buying it—especially since the juror had provided “satisfactory answers,” was flagged by defense notes as a “good juror,” and nothing in the juror’s questionnaire raised red flags. Worse, counsel hadn’t even asked the gang-related questions he claimed were his reason for striking the juror. Under §231.7(d)(1), the court doesn’t need proof of actual bias—just a “substantial likelihood” that an objectively reasonable person would see race, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor. On these facts, the court ruled that standard was met. The takeaway? When race-adjacent issues are on the table—like gang affiliation—peremptory challenges require real, fact-based justification.