says that the trial court is required to engage in the sensitive in depth analysis of whether or not the proffered reese neutral reasons basis for the grant three strikes of property by the prosecutor strucker and his reasons for doing that he thought he proper she said that she responded in appropriately to questions on two or three occasions but he could only remember one and it's a big example that he gave us this question for the court that you work for this battle government she said united states previously she stated that she worked for the post office of the terrier and the prosecutor proffered this as an inappropriate response to a question the problem of course for those with the prosecutor's intention there is that there is nothing wrong with her response because her response is corrected this is a purely early of working for the postal service that they indeed are employees of the united s overruling the objection to the jury panel like i said i freesheet you disagree with that but the question for us is whether that determination is an unreasonable application unreasonable application and your answer is yes it is because it never at no point did that at the state courts ever engage in the sensitive inquiry part of your vast they made simply made up a determination without looking at the said this united states federal thing that's silly so it's obviously pretextual is that what you would have had to do or something else there's that that's one issue the other issues the prosecutor said well she did two or three times said things that didn't responses were somewhat inappropriate but if you look at her voice here that's not true i mean the prosecution comes up with this idea that the fact that she said that she thought her criminal case wasn't handled well that she doesn't hold out against the district court judge came up with the same conclusion that the nevada supreme court the supreme court came up with and that was that there was no pretext specifically regarding jurors martin thrower regarding juror reviewed the record in this case i would also point out that when judge bonaventure the district court judge was in the courtroom and i back up just for him and point out under hernandez that there's extra extra we have to go an extra mile to give credibility to the observations of the district court judge and this case and the district court judge was the one judge bonaventure in las vegas  those proceedings listen to the answers and he was the one who was able to look at the body language and hear the voice he's the only one in this matter who has not been dealing with us only from the cold record on that issue he's got a high burden in this case this case will be controlled by the standards of review because the standard of review under add to for errors of the fact that are made by the state court is clear convincing and the when the u s district court judge reviewed the report and recommendation that was made by the magistrate in this case what he found was the magistrate's review of the record was not complete it was simply not correct for example that and martin's case she we get into this do you work for the federal government do you do you work for the united states a lot of her questions as a prosecutor kind of a lot of her answers concern me a lot more for  but i would suggest that it was articulated at the time because what the prosecutor said was there were two or three answers that she gave that he was suspect of and he had some concerns with regarding the confusion he was specifically able to remember one but all of the reviewing courts as i read these orders have found that that was enough of an articulation to go into the entirety of her questions to see if there was some confusion and i think that's i think that's probably correct the issue as to whether or not she's been a victim of crime goes to the issue of whether i think she was inconsistent as to whether or not she was going to blame the state of nevada for the way that other issue was handled on the one hand she said when she was asked were you satisfied with the way the officials handled that that crime she apparently was shot in the leg by a home invasion or burglary she said well somewhat it could have been handled better then she turned around one or two questions later and she said to judge bonaventure i don't blame the authorities for the case now i'd be concerned about that and i think it goes to the two i think it's one of the two or three questions that this prosecutor has said gave him some concern as to her confusion and this goes to the heart of i don't want to take your point from that what's what's when somebody says well i could have handled better and then sort of thinks well no i don't want to cast aspersions what's wrong with that i don't understand i see some and i seen can i see inconsistency in that response because on the one hand she's saying it was not handled well i'm paraphrasing conceitedly she says i'm it was not handled well by the state authorities on the other hand she's saying i don't hold it against the state authorities i think those are incompatible responses because as a victim of crime i think she does hold it against the state when she says they didn't handle this case very well i was  was that she had then there'd been a home invasion or burglary some a man had been in her house and the judge asked her where you satisfied with the way the that case was handled by the authorities her response questions later such one of answers bonaventure asked her love you hold that against the state and she said no i don't didn't you know she said she could be a fair witness i would be concerned as a prosecutor that that's an inconsistent  there's and i don't want to i'm not i can't i can't go too far afield because i'm limited to what the prosecutor said but i think there's something else going on here going on here with her questions and answers that relate to the confusion i think there's a certain hostility that's coming out i think it's clear i'm interprete ing but i think it's clear from the record she simply does not want to serve maybe it's because she bent on that grand jury part of the problem here is that this is such a fast process and judge reimer commented on that this order is so fast these attorneys and this judge are giving each one of these people three or four or five minutes to determine what we think their attitude is and the  consistency of their answers and according to the batson case this is supposed to be a quick process the batson challenge is supposed to be a quick process in the middle of this of jury selection to answer some of these questions this is th court found that in fact the concerns that were expressed by the prosecutor in fact were supported by the record i will concede that in the martin case this record this is not the clearest facts for really really bad answers thrower's issue i think is easier to deal with but i think there's sufficient factual support for juror martin's inconsistent answers i think that relates to you i think that the i think the confusion i think part of the confusion in the inconsistency in her answers comes from the fact that most of her answers were single word answers and i think because i think that reflects or attitude and i think that's perhaps part of the issue as to why she came across sounding confused and inconsistent but i think there are i think there is enough there that the finding that there was not that what's wrong with that i think it's inconsistent because i think it shows on the one hand as a victim of crime that she was she was of she was a victim of crime in a violent crime and there was a process that was initiated by the state and official process initiated by the state she said i don't like what happened in that process i am unsatisfied on the other hand she says i don't hold it against the state i see as a prosecutor an should here isn't whether or not there's a basis for disqualifying her the more the core issue here is whether or not that's the fission to overcome this issue of pretext to reality and i think it is because as a prosecutor i can see the prosecutor hearing that at trial thinking that's inconsistent because i'm hearing anger lingering dissatisfaction with the way this process works and yet on the other hand she says no i don't hold it against the da as the da at trial that day i would be thinking she was holding this against me i don't believe it should have said here's why i didn't i will you don't particularly all of those reasons she here that i think the record limits us to at this point is inconsistency and united states and post office well i think it's i think it's i think there are of three or four questions i grew the prosecutor i think the united states and post office issue was one of those but i think there were inconsistency these in these other answers i think that related to hostility but you're absolutely correct this issue of hostility is not in the record week i can't rely on that now because the prosecutor didn't cite to that but i think these other issues impact the issue of the consistency and her ability to respond to those questions thank you and i just would like to briefly just point out a factual error and the government's answer you very thought of this bill just very briefly because it's important to me because the government represents i make concessions that i did not make on footnote twelve their answer in and that concession i take umbrage with them attribute a concession that i never made the same thing on answering three fourteen when they say concede thrower filled out his information sheet wrong was directly contrary to the assertions both myself and the ma