In Hernandez v. New York (1991) 500 U.S. 352, defense counsel objected that the prosecutor had improperly used peremptory challenges against several prospective Latino jurors. (Id. at p. 356.) The prosecutor did not wait for the trial court to rule whether the defense had made a prima facie case, but, instead volunteered his reasons for striking the jurors. The trial court thereafter denied the defense motion, finding no purposeful discrimination. (Id. at pp. 356-357.) In reviewing the procedural development of the case, the United States Supreme Court wrote: "The prosecutor defended his use of peremptory strikes without any prompting or inquiry from the trial court. As a result, the trial court had no occasion to rule that the defense had or had not made a prima facie showing of intentional discrimination. This departure from the normal course of proceeding need not concern us. . . . Once a prosecutor has offered a race-neutral explanation for the peremptory challenges and the trial court has ruled on the ultimate question of intentional discrimination, the preliminary issue of whether the defendant had made a prima facie showing becomes moot." (Id. at p. 359.)