It is well established that when considering a Batson challenge, i.e., a challenge that a litigant has exercised its use of peremptory strikes in a discriminating manner, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous, and will review the trial court's application of the law de novo. State v. Ford, 2001 MT 230, ¶ 7, 306 Mont. 517, 39 P.3d 108. In Ford, this Court reviewed the history and progression of the Batson analysis concerning jury composition. Ford, ¶¶ 8-20. The standard of review to be applied by an appellate court to a Batson challenge depends upon the issue being appealed. If the issue on appeal is a matter of law, such as the timeliness in which a Batson challenge is made, the appellate court will review the trial court's application of the law de novo. If the issue is a factual one, however, e.g., whether a party has established a prima facie case for discrimination, an appellate court will defer to the trial court's findings of fact unless clearly erroneous. Therefore, it is imperative that the trial court fully develop a record for review – a record that includes all relevant facts and information relied upon by the trial court to render its decision, as well as a full explanation of the court's rationale. Ford, ¶ 18.