to conclude that the prosecutor was credible. 11 . In response to the prosecutor’s characterization of Juror 016’s alleged conduct, the trial court responded: "the court, frankly, did not observe the demeanor of Ms. 016 that was complained of by the district attorney.” In light of the trial court’s statement and the fact that there is nothing in the trial transcript (except the prosecutor’s representation) which indicates that Juror 016 answered any question by stating "uh-huh” or that she had rolled her eyes or turned away, the appellate court reasonably determined that the trial court had accepted the prosecutor’s statements about Juror 016's demeanor as true. Its corresponding conclusion — that a peremptory challenge exercised on the basis of a ju U.S. at 768-69, 115 S.Ct. 1769 (<HOLDING>); Batson, 476 U.S. at 98, 106 S.Ct. 1712
holding that at step three the trial court must evaluate the persuasiveness of the prosecutors justification holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to continue trial three months where although trial was complex and records were voluminous court had already granted two prior continuances and continuance of three weeks was sufficient to prepare for trial holding that a trial court must conduct sua sponte a competency hearing when the information known to the trial court at the time of the trial or plea is sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the defendants competence holding that if a court decides that an outsideguidelines sentence is warranted it must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance holding that the decision of the appellate court establishes the law of the case and it must be followed by the trial court on remand