What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

TREVINO v. TEXAS
No. 91-6751.
Decided April 6, 1992
Per Curiam.
I
The State of Texas charged petitioner Joe Mario Trevino for the murder and rape of Blanche Miller, a capital offense. On February 1, 1984, before jury selection, petitioner filed a “Motion to Prohibit the State from Using Peremptory Chai-lenges to Strike Members of a Cognizable Group.” The motion recited:'
“The Accused requests of the Court that the State of Texas be prohibited from its use of peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors merely based on the fact of race. The prosecution, the State of Texas, historically and habitually uses its peremptory challenges to strike black people and other minorities who are otherwise qualified. These peremptory challenges are exercised by the State of Texas to strike prospective black jurors in its effort to produce an ethnically pure, all white, jury. This common use of the State’s peremptory challenge in a criminal trial deprives the Accused of due process and a fair trial. This practice deprives the Accused of a jury representing a fair cross-section of the community in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
“A hearing is requested on this Motion.” 1A Record 280.
The trial court delayed ruling on the motion until the voir dire. During the course of voir dire, the prosecution exercised its peremptory challenges to excuse the only three black members of the venire. After each of these peremptory strikes, petitioner, who is Hispanic, renewed his motion, asking that the prosecution state its reasons for striking the jurors. The first time petitioner renewed the motion, the court stated: “I know of no requirement yet for either party to announce his reasons for exercising a preemptory [sic] challenge. Can you cite me some law on that?” 11 Record 356. In response, petitioner’s counsel cited McCray v. Abrams, 576 P. Supp. 1244 (EDNY), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 750 F. 2d 1113 (CA2 1984). He went on to note that when we denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in McCray v. New York, 461 U. S. 961 (1983), five Justices expressed the view that Swain v. Alabama, 380 U. S. 202 (1965), ought to be reexamined. 11 Record 356. The trial court denied petitioner’s motion, and denied it again after two more black venire members were excluded.
The all-white jury returned a verdict of guilty and after a sentencing hearing returned affirmative answers to the two special questions posed by the court. See Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262, 267-269 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). As required under such circumstances, see ibid., the trial court sentenced petitioner to death. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, filing his brief on December 19, 1985. This is the cause now before us. He cited 24 errors in the guilt and punishment phases of the trial court proceedings. The only one of concern now is the prosecutor’s use of peremptory challenges based on race.
Petitioner contended in the Court of Criminal Appeals that the prosecution’s race based use of challenges violated his “rights to due process of law and to an impartial jury fairly drawn from a representative cross section of the community.” Brief for Appellant in No. 69337, p. 11. He found these rights in “the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,” as well as provisions of the Texas Constitution. Ibid. He asserted he was renewing the objections pressed at trial. Ibid. He acknowledged that under Swain v. Alabama, the use of peremptory challenges to discriminate in a single case would not be an equal protection violation but noted that in Batson v. Kentucky, cert. granted, 471 U. S. 1052 (1985), we would reconsider the question under the Sixth Amendment. When his brief was filed, we had heard oral argument in Batson but had not announced our decision. Petitioner urged that even if Bat-son did not alter the requirement of alleging an overall scheme of discrimination, the Court of Criminal Appeals should prohibit peremptory challenges based on race as a matter of state law.
On April 30, 1986, not long after petitioner filed his brief in the Court of Criminal Appeals, our decision in Batson came down. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79. The case announced the now familiar rule that when a defendant makes a prima facie showing that the State has exercised its peremptory challenges to exclude members of the defendant’s racial group, the State bears the burden of coming forward with a race neutral justification. Just over a month after Batson was decided, the State filed its brief in the Court of Criminal Appeals. The State argued Batson could not avail petitioner because he is not a member of the same race as the excluded jurors. According to the State, petitioner’s claim could not be considered an equal protection claim but was instead a claim that he was entitled to a jury composed of a “fair cross-section” of the community. Brief for Appellee in No. 69337, pp. 15-17. In drawing this distinction, the State relied on the view that a criminal defendant does not state an equal protection claim unless he alleges that the excluded jurors are members of the same protected class as he. We rejected this view last Term in Powers v. Ohio, 499 U. S. 400 (1991).
The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, sitting en banc, affirmed petitioner’s conviction and sentence on June 12, 1991, and denied petitioner’s application for rehearing on September 18, 1991. The opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeals does not set forth the reason for the delay of over five years between the submission of briefs and the resolution of the appeal. With respect to the peremptory challenge question, the court stated that the argument was foreclosed by Holland v. Illinois, 493 U. S. 474 (1990), in which we held that the Sixth Amendment does not prohibit the prosecution from exercising its peremptory challenges to exclude potential jurors based on race. 815 S. W. 2d 592, 598. In a footnote, the Court of Criminal Appeals stated that the arguments in petitioner’s brief did not amount to reliance on the Equal Protection Clause. Id., at 598, n. 3. The court’s opinion cited neither Powers nor Ford v. Georgia, 498 U. S. 411, which we decided on February 19, 1991. We now grant certiorari.
II
In Ford v. Georgia, we addressed what steps a defendant in a criminal case was required to take to preserve an equal protection objection to the State’s race based use of peremptory challenges during the pre-Batson era. Here we consider whether petitioner took those steps.
In Ford, the petitioner filed a pretrial “Motion to Restrict Racial Use of Peremptory Challenges,” 498 U. S., at 413, wording which is in all material respects parallel to the present petitioner’s pretrial “Motion to Prohibit the State from Using Peremptory Challenges to Strike Members of a Cognizable Group.” The ultimate issue in Ford concerned the validity of a state procedural rule, but before reaching it we ruled on a preliminary issue, and that ruling is dispositive here. We stated:
“The threshold issues are whether and, if so, when petitioner presented the trial court with a cognizable Batson claim that the State’s exercise of its peremptory challenges rested on the impermissible ground of race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We think petitioner must be treated as having raised such a claim, although he certainly failed to do it with the clarity that appropriate citations would have promoted. The pretrial motion made no mention of the Equal Protection Clause, and the later motion for a new trial cited the Sixth Amendment, not the Fourteenth.” Id., at 418.
Despite the inartfulness of the Ford petitioner’s assertion of his rights, we held he had presented his claim to the trial court. We noted that his reference in his motion to exclusion of black jurors “ ‘over a long period of time,’ ” and his argument to the same effect “could reasonably have been intended and interpreted to raise a claim under the Equal Protection Clause on the evidentiary theory articulated in Batson’s antecedent, Swain v. Alabama.” Id., at 419. We placed this interpretation on the reference to history because the standard of proof for an equal protection violation under Swain required a showing of racial exclusion in “case after case.” 380 U. S., at 223.
In the matter now before us petitioner also relied on a claim of a historical pattern of discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. That alone would have been sufficient under Ford to place the equal protection claim before the trial court. Of course, petitioner did more. He made an express reference to Swain in his argument to the trial court. 11 Record 356. In fact, petitioner argued that we would modify Swain’s burden of proof and that the Texas courts should anticipate our decision. We decide that petitioner presented his equal protection claim to the trial court.
We determine further that petitioner preserved his equal protection claim before the Court of Criminal Appeals. His argument caption made an express reference to the Fourteenth Amendment, and the issue presented for review was the very one that he had raised before the trial court.
The State in its brief to the Court of Criminal Appeals recognized that petitioner’s argument contained an equal protection claim, albeit one which the State believed to lack merit. The State did not argue that petitioner was not making an equal protection claim but that petitioner’s equal protection claim had no legal support. Given our later holding in Powers v. Ohio, supra, the State’s contention is incorrect.
We cannot ignore the fact that were we to hold petitioner had forfeited his equal protection claim by failing to state it with sufficient precision, we would be applying a stricter standard than applied in Batson itself. There petitioner had conceded in the state courts that Swain foreclosed a direct equal protection claim, and he based his argument on the Sixth Amendment and a provision of the Kentucky Constitution. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S., at 83. Yet we treated his allegation of a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment as sufficient to present the question. Id., at 84-85, n. 4. Because petitioner’s case is here on direct review, he is entitled to the rule we announced in Batson. Compare Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U. S. 314 (1987) (giving retroactive application to Batson for cases pending on direct review or not yet final when Batson was decided), with Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288, 296 (1989) (denying similar application for cases on collateral review).
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?
001. U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
002. U.S. Court of International Trade
003. U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
004. U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
005. U.S. Court of Military Review
006. U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
007. U.S. Customs Court
008. U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
009. U.S. Tax Court
010. Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
011. U.S. Court for China
012. U.S. Consular Courts
013. U.S. Commerce Court
014. Territorial Supreme Court
015. Territorial Appellate Court
016. Territorial Trial Court
017. Emergency Court of Appeals
018. Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
019. Bankruptcy Court
020. U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
021. U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
022. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
023. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
024. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
025. U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
026. U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
027. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
028. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
029. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
030. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
031. U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
032. Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
033. Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
034. Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
035. Alaska U.S. District Court
036. Arizona U.S. District Court
037. Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
038. Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
039. California Central U.S. District Court
040. California Eastern U.S. District Court
041. California Northern U.S. District Court
042. California Southern U.S. District Court
043. Colorado U.S. District Court
044. Connecticut U.S. District Court
045. Delaware U.S. District Court
046. District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
047. Florida Middle U.S. District Court
048. Florida Northern U.S. District Court
049. Florida Southern U.S. District Court
050. Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
051. Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
052. Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
053. Guam U.S. District Court
054. Hawaii U.S. District Court
055. Idaho U.S. District Court
056. Illinois Central U.S. District Court
057. Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
058. Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
059. Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
060. Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
061. Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
062. Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
063. Kansas U.S. District Court
064. Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
065. Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
066. Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
067. Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
068. Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
069. Maine U.S. District Court
070. Maryland U.S. District Court
071. Massachusetts U.S. District Court
072. Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
073. Michigan Western U.S. District Court
074. Minnesota U.S. District Court
075. Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
076. Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
077. Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
078. Missouri Western U.S. District Court
079. Montana U.S. District Court
080. Nebraska U.S. District Court
081. Nevada U.S. District Court
082. New Hampshire U.S. District Court
083. New Jersey U.S. District Court
084. New Mexico U.S. District Court
085. New York Eastern U.S. District Court
086. New York Northern U.S. District Court
087. New York Southern U.S. District Court
088. New York Western U.S. District Court
089. North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
090. North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
091. North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
092. North Dakota U.S. District Court
093. Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
094. Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
095. Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
096. Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
097. Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
098. Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
099. Oregon U.S. District Court
100. Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
101. Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
102. Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
103. Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
104. Rhode Island U.S. District Court
105. South Carolina U.S. District Court
106. South Dakota U.S. District Court
107. Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
108. Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
109. Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
110. Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
111. Texas Northern U.S. District Court
112. Texas Southern U.S. District Court
113. Texas Western U.S. District Court
114. Utah U.S. District Court
115. Vermont U.S. District Court
116. Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
117. Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
118. Virginia Western U.S. District Court
119. Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
120. Washington Western U.S. District Court
121. West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
122. West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
123. Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
124. Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
125. Wyoming U.S. District Court
126. Louisiana U.S. District Court
127. Washington U.S. District Court
128. West Virginia U.S. District Court
129. Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
130. South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
131. South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
132. Alabama U.S. District Court
133. U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
134. Georgia U.S. District Court
135. Illinois U.S. District Court
136. Indiana U.S. District Court
137. Iowa U.S. District Court
138. Michigan U.S. District Court
139. Mississippi U.S. District Court
140. Missouri U.S. District Court
141. New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
142. New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
143. New York U.S. District Court
144. North Carolina U.S. District Court
145. Ohio U.S. District Court
146. Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
147. Tennessee U.S. District Court
148. Texas U.S. District Court
149. Virginia U.S. District Court
150. Norfolk U.S. District Court
151. Wisconsin U.S. District Court
152. Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
153. New Jersey U.S. District Court
154. California U.S. District Court
155. Florida U.S. District Court
156. Arkansas U.S. District Court
157. District of Orleans U.S. District Court
158. State Supreme Court
159. State Appellate Court
160. State Trial Court
161. Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
162. Middle Circuit (of the United States)
163. Southern Circuit (of the United States)
164. Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
165. Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
166. California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
167. Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
168. Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
169. Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
170. Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
171. Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
172. Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
173. Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
174. Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
175. Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
176. Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
177. Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
178. Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
179. Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
180. Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
181. Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
182. Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
183. Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
184. Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
185. New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
186. New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
187. New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
188. North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
189. Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
190. Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
191. Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
192. Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
193. South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
194. Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
195. Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
196. Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
197. Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
198. West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
199. Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
200. Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
201. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
202. Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
203. Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
204. Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
205. Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
206. Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
207. Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah
208. South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota
209. North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota
210. Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma
211. Court of Private Land Claims
212. United States Supreme Court
Answer: