e drug deal and they asked for read back a detective kaiser's testimony on the crack cocaine on in the shoe box if this were such a clear cut case circumstantial evidence everything depended on here when the trial court asked two pages worth of questions not to clarify anything but with the evidence intention of showing that when he pleaded there is that once you say yes i'm guilty in order to take a plea you must be guilty whereas under california law we all know that that's not the case you can take a plea to guilty because it's in your best interests but by hammering ho asked would you be here complaining and not on that issue not at all judge these are its precise there's something in the quality of the questioner that gave more weight to the answers to those questions exactly judge beezer was there any you tell me why this with close one what would have given major problems it must be judged right hard it must be something in the demeanor of i will not on here otherwise this would have been a half hour verdict and in that context well it's nice to hear it really take the time to think seriously about a case and you know sometimes  support wheeler's position that sure although sometimes durst take a long time of course we can only speculate but something is going on here too cool have to to have to is awfully long for two days of testimony in an open and shut case with the backs and so on and that's why i can only surmise and unprejudiced all we can do is do is informed speculation indicating that this was not a jury that was very deliberate and considerate of the evidence as opposed to the case that was close in any way given that there was a confession given that a search of the defendant's apartment  turned up all of the contraband and drug paraphernalia that he was eventually charged with given that there were recorded conversations of the defendant in which he talked about his coconspirators and about the drug transaction  i don't know your honor but it was a lengthy tape recording that was played during the trial and there was a lot of information in that tape about the shape of the transaction the drug transaction  surveillance turing's and periods of the live i don't know your honor but what we do know what we do know your honor is that there were surveillance photos of the people who were eventually charged  a couple possibilities your honor first of all it's possible that the defendant when he had the conversation that was recorded i believe by the drug enforcement administration and told the da undercover agent that he had the drugs that it wasn't that he had just received the drugs but that he had had the drugs for some length of time the other possibility your honor is that the surveillance was simply imperfect and i think that there are many cases in which surveillance agents aren't able to an ample basis for a conviction with respect to the defendant's claim of error and the judge's questioning i think that it's useful to emphasize what the legal standard is for evaluating such a claim then judge now justice kennedy further wrote that there has to be an extreme overstepping of the property disha wall and similarly in the to look at case this court said that there has to be a basis of climate of partial at the judge's questioning in context of the examination that had been done both by government counsel and defense counsel by that time by the time the judge asked the defendant those questions the defendant had already admitted that he had pled guilty i guess i lied when i told the drugs i didn't do it all because one of the main arguments that poland presents on this appeal is that the district judge was basing his questions on an erroneous understanding what california law requires with respect to individuals who plead guilty it's quite possible that he was making an inquiry as to whether this was one of those situations  focused it's useful to look again at the testimony in context the defendant through his counsel was repeatedly engaging in long narrative answers and i think that it's a fair reading of the transcript that the district judge was frustrated by all of that i don't think however that the questions themselves revealed any pervasive climate of bias at the time from self concedes that there were no other ultimately what the defendant testified to i don't know if there was any logical way for him to testify the prosecutor then followed up with further cross examination unless that well aren't you lying today in order to get like just like in the stevens case that hans councillor for the court to that situation that hypothetical which didn't happen here the judge would be commenting on the question in a way that directly went to the defendant's the jury this guy is a liar that's my opinion it's pretty significant but that's not what happened you know he he didn't say that there was a limiting and there was a limiting instruction and if you look at