now dependent here is arguing that he needed this question because of the unflattering nature of patronizing a prostitute but prostitution or patronizing prostitutes is not unlike any of that generally does not like any of the unflattering here or conduct about the band is that juries are routinely entrusted with the routinely entrusted to consider whether it's relevant to the actual charges where some questions are allowed yes if that ultimately does or not and if that is the case then howard how are we supposed to decide how controversial prostitution is sure or discretion to not ask a question that was best that's a really narrow scope we're talking we're talking about things that that call to mind that are that we know that we know at least and so therefore there's a there's a fear that jurors might believe that that there's a fear that jurors might be so prejudiced by gang membership that that there would be a presumption that this defendant must have  history of the taking person if they aren't suggests that maybe it's relevant to the to the matter at hand and then ultimately not testify and then the jury's left thinking about that and wondering and counsel acknowledged three times prior to asking for this question or hear about prostitution that general are issues regarding regarding our sexual activity  and other days you know the court says you're going to you're not going to go into any other prior sexual conduct on these alleged victims council responded correct i think of the law as the law is or says ok you're not going to offer any neutral question that the defense sought to have the judge pose to the panel potential jurors that question what you will hear evidence about prostitution with that fact alone prevent you from being fair to either side it was a carefully crafted question phrase neutrally and addressing a factual issue that was going to be introduced to the case and it was designed to ferret out prejudices and biases that otherwise would not have been discovered through the center for your to have abandoned its own evidence there and the concept that that the jury agrees to the evidence fairly even if as it intends if it's true that the proposed question simply said that they would hear evidence of prostitution which again the and excuse those jurors or ask for an instruction to clarify that prostitution refers only to a singular transaction it is because the proposed question here presupposed no details presuppose here was very mutually phrased it did not say that the evidence would be coming from one party or the other it did not invite jurors just speculate if the jerk thought something negatively about prostitution if the juror was going to assume certain things about his sexual history then that needed to be corrected in forty years the very time to correct that before the jury is is sworn in agrees to give evidence discussion only you know that's exactly what this question could have ferreted out if a juror was going to make certain assumptions the question heart delayed reporting sexual assault in fact this court just a couple of years ago endorsed much more detail than in basic questions on the delayed reporting of sexual assault compared to the senior question the singular neutral question that was proposed in this case going to race was the concern here that this question was trying to deal with the concern it is actually both of those it's concern that that because again evidence is going to at the time of year the parties the judge and defense counsel the very least for expecting that out bias on both sides is the point of the question it wasn't simply to you you know look for jurors who would you know be very upset about a man who's you know engaging the services of prostitutes and engaging is going to  be on a regular basis but it's also you know if if if there if you know as the state's position if jurors were automatically go going to view their witnesses negatively surely they want to know that you but looking at this case of course from the defense point of view how is he prejudiced and that's my concern me this is not the focus we should be looking at without this instruction to have a fair trial that's what we should how we should be focusing on the defendant sure i mean i'm also maintain that this would have faired out bias on both sides but yes the question is whether the judge you know a trial judge abuses his discretion refusing to ask this question and you know the appellate court i think was exactly right a factual issue involving a subject that we know kerry strong opinions and prejudices and they're not all you know it's not just one attitude it's not just one prejudice that we're talking about so absolutely not we don't know if what prejudice is ended up on the jury because the judge refused this question and we can't stand assume that trial was fair if we don't know what prejudice is ended up on the jury because this question was with us all weighing up on just stations question of then are we being called on to determine whether the bias or the negative character since only a defendant is requesting the question of facts the defendant more the facts the victim the prostitute in this case is that isn't you have to weigh on which side it would have been more prejudicial it would it mean i i think it was much additional to both sides not ask a question it's certainly prejudice is trent lott of because he wasn't able to ferret out the prejudices held by those jurors who might have was exchanged for certain sexual acts and later turned into a criminal sexual assault and also when we didn't call her and sentencing but at the time this is going to come from both sides and you know we also have to credit defense counsel who was doing this  discretion but i think that part of it sounds like part of your argument is that by asking the question of prostitution that really is the defense part of the case to make it consensual those factual type questions would be asked that would be predisposing the jury and my question goes to the and then if the question was any asked presumably the jury wouldn't be predisposed as to the issue of prostitution maybe entering the case and opposing counsel in response to justice faced questions well this week they were going to hear about prostitution whether it came in for deer or now because we thought as it was going to testify on this it was going to testify as to prostitution so does that at least take away the predisposition argument what it points to your honor is is the reason why the overall rule its general the jury which we presume we presume the jury able to apply a lot of facts and we entrust them so you make a determination about what version of answers the most credible and there's a risk when you start engaging in this