please the court we are asking that the convictions in this case be reversed and the case remanded because the government failed to disclose that one of their most important witnesses was a paid informant for multiple law enforcement agencies at the trial in our case in two thousand and six victor bulgarian testified as a witness you didn't have any stake in the case whatsoever he was not receiving any benefits he had he had a previous case from two thousand and four that he'd already been sentenced on so he wasn't there or that case was done he wasn't testifying in the hope that he would get benefits in terms of that cooperation in athens the jury was left with the impression that mr varian was coming forward as a good citizen to testify against the violent boys on and especially to establish their connection with the mexican mafia it didn't come out i can interrupt you for a moment counsel i don't know what the brady violation is can you please tell me that and then i'm going to follow that up with a question about the fact that we're being asked to analyze whether there's a brady violation here  prosecutors made it to failing to disclose the five thousand dollars that was submitted on cross examination the brady violation is that victor bulgarian was operating as a paid informant that he was he was not just a good citizen coming forward he was actually earning lots of money as an informant he was cooperating with d n a the bureau of narcotics enforcement the a f the f b i and he testified at the later trial that he had received over one hundred thousand dollars that is completely different than the five thousand dollars relocation costs which the government argues the least they could do since he was coming forward as a good citizen to testify against finally boy who was in great danger they needed to do that in order to make sure that he was kept safe but what was really going on at that time was that he was actually receiving money for his testimony and his for operation we know at at our trial he testified that the first time he met with law enforcement about the simon voice was after he'd already been sentenced in that two thousand  case so at that point there was no reason for him to continue operating in the sense that the jury was left with was that he was doing this because he was a good guy and he wanted to  see these guys behind behind bars that he didn't he didn't have any stake in the outcome of this case and that turned out not be true and also because i could slow you down one minute and i just want to make sure i understand the record that the defense is relying on to allege a brady violation in this case you're saying that at the time that he testified in this trial in two thousand and six he had already been working as an informant and the defense didn't  multiple agencies was because some years later he testified in a different trial and said that oh between two thousand and four and two thousand and nine i caught a whole bunch of money so the inference is that  for two years prior to the trial in this case he must have been working from areas agencies because he said so some years later and by getting it right yes i mean i well the one thing i'll say just to add here that was that he said he had been even that he says that he had started working on the violent ways case and that this money had been paid since two thousand and four he didn't qualify that it's been since two thousand and six for example and we also know informant at that point and as you can see from the letter that or the filing in to the court that we included in the sealed excerpts of records the defense counsel was immediately suspicious even in two thousand six about what was going on they were very concerned highly because a lot of what he testified to just didn't make sense based on what was already known about the next mafia but also because it was it didn't it didn't make any sense as to why he was testifying if you'd already been sentenced and it wasn't until after about it he sat down with law enforcement that there wasn't any purpose for the cooperation and so that there was immediate suspicion about that and the record really does even though there are some disputed facts the record really does show that he was working as a hold informant back in two thousand and six when he when that had not been disclosed it's not entirely district court could sort it out well let me address that when we found out about this evidence it was two thousand nine hundred two late first filed to file in the district court because even even  under the newly discovered evidence little thirty three section three years had passed the factoid and i'm sure we filed about point the government would have said it was not timely and i agree that the record i not entirely clear the government admits that the agency that he was most likely cooperating with back then was the be any and that agency has since merged with another and they were unable to track down those payments that's i would not be the pro create vehicle well we certainly could go back after this case is done at the at this point we can't file a twenty to fifty five but we could certainly go back later on our clients won't be represented by counsel at that point and given that we have so much information just because he ended up testifying against we have some and we although there are some disputed facts we know that he was working as a paid informant back th right we all have we have a zero seven appellate numbers so we had in fact we had been on this appeal for quite some time at the point that these went to trial he was a codefendant in this case so we were very much aware and he's the brother  prejudiced problem we're asking that all of the convictions be reversed and the rhythm of what counts  hundred overt acts that ranged from small drug deals to murders there were five murders that had not been committed by any of your talents that work that came into evidence sometimes in great detail in trial now for two months on what's basically a drug conspiracy case and yet because the government charged it as a rico case all of these other prejudicial acts came in and so that that what victor ball guerin's testimony really went to the heart of their case he was the one who said the violin boys is an entity they have a ruler they have tentacles and go up to the mexican mafia they have these meetings i and i offered to supply the large quantities of drugs he testified his testimony is not only about the enterprise but also about the drug sales that the gang made the government's theory was that the gang could only sell drugs because of the enterprise the protection of enterprise eyes but this was a wire case so the government had been up on a wire from quite some time multiple phones and that was the bulk of the evidence when when you try a week a wiretap case it's conversations testimony regarding which phones were tapped who phones that belonged to agents drawing the lines between different pieces  testimony really to the extent of the crop aeration and whether the result would have been any different in light of all the other evidence that the government presented well it's true that i i'm not able to here representing in particular but to go through every single drug count that was charged because it certainly was a huge case i will say you're absolutely right a lot of that the evidence was wiretapped and frequently there would be conversations about  three three motors and the government then would come forward and say well when they're saying three motors that means three kilos and mr vulgarians testimony when to that as well because he was the one who talked about the amount of taxes the amount that that the violent boys would need to pay to the mexican mafia and so that also went to the the drug quantity now in certain cases in in some cases there were seizures but not in all and my client for example got a life sentence on drugs that were not recovered that were based on what the agent then said he was talking about there were some drugs recovered but what got him over that mandatory minimum amount was based on the agent's later interpretation of what it was that he was talking about the victor bulgarian was the guy on the ground who could say this is the price i think the government started by asking him about the price per pound of methamphetamine and where they had a government expert testifying about the street price to i'm assuming they did they did although presumably also some of his conclusions were based on mr bulgarians evidence which from the beginning was very i mean just veracity was as you can tell from the defense where filing there was great concern about what he was testifying to he testified that he was the right hand man to a mexican mafia leader and yet he never met that leader he testified that that he had the keys to a prison even though he'd never been to prison he didn't have any any record and if counsel and so i'm interrupting you again so i know time is very short on this issue but if we are unclear as to whether brady violations even occurred why should it be reversible across the board and then we may have instead of an affirmative without prejudice for you to sort this out in the district court well i certainly hope that any affirmative would be without prejudice because we would absolutely want to raise the in a twenty to fifty five and i will just point out that we won't there won't be lawyers in that twenty two five proceeding which is one of the big problems with these radios shouldn't they come to light later and frequently the defendants are not represented at that point and so we actually we are in the unusual position that we found out about this evidence partly because it was just that the testimony was so upsetting at the time to trial lawyers to the trial lawyers and that the trial lawyer and what you know if you can skate contacted us we and please the court ok i am donna randolph and i represented mr mason during these proceedings i was trial counsel in two thousand and six this morning i would like to amplify two critical points on voir gear frankly until i read the transcript and within the last few days of the seven days of large air i didn't clearly remember nor appreciate the significance of parts of the record hopefully you'll indulge me now since the last time i read these transcripts was over eight years ago when i was still a young man here we are today and i'm trying to address these facts in time permitting ms we followed his present to counsel table will address the case law we've split up the argument facts for me and case law from this we fall as court notice from the briefs voir dire of over two hundred perspective jurors took place over approximately seven days two thirds of that word here was outside the presence of the defendants and of the public from the outset i objected to the process that they defendants were being excluded from being present these objections raised again several times during  now the two key points that i got from the transcripts which i'd like to present to this court this morning are first i personally requested that the court adopt a procedure that would accommodate the presence of both the defendants and the public during  given the security concerns the feis of the case these are just the concord room set up that i missed something in the record well it's the reason you didn't actually miss it you're on your honor the when i made my proposal it dismissed without without discussion and so let me then part of what i really want to do today is walk through that proposal so this court understands what was contained in that proposal even though it was summarily disc dismissed by the tr court now on the first day of mr mason i on his behalf i objected to the procedure at that point when the first prospective juror over of many had been briefly questions in  jury room with all the attorneys and none of the defendants it was clear that the court intended to conduct not just some hardship questions in in the jury room but all of the cause of all of the voir dire for a cause and without inquiring first even whether a prospective juror wanted to discuss things in private my objection was overruled and the board here proceeded to pace on day three your honor that's when we got to my proposal me set the stage for you if i can in open court you have the defendants all nine of them sitting on a couple of peers you have the fifty or so of prospective jurors sitting in the courtroom you have a handful of spectators crammed into one side of the court room with the fifty prospective jurors you have twelve jurors sitting in the jury box and then in the jury room you have all counsel for the government and the defendant and one prospective jurors are being questioned both for hardship and for cause oh and the last thing is over in spring street in the jury room in the a jury assembly room there you had two hundred or so just prospective jurors who are connected by video feed as necessary because the period on and off at that point i made my proposal to the court and that's where i'd like to use this diagram as f this is what i've proposed all the finance you put in open court a very small number of people also you know or prospective jurors seeds in the jury box put them in a journal and to what about the perspective jurors in the audience the court said it's not possible not feel feasible physically impossible we're not going to do that no questions so several weeks later when we had my arguments for mistrial on behalf of mr mesa the court expanded on the reasons for rejecting my proposal and at that time several weeks later he criticized my proposal is not feasible because i didn't account in my proposal for the fifty or so prospective jurors now significantly at that time in court to not make any mention mention of category number to the very small number of people who  court so the first question is who was that small category of people that were being referred to to the judge the court didn't ask and the record shows the discussion was closed at that time however and i would argue to the court it is clear from the record that in addition to the fifty plus prospective jurors there were also spectators in the courtroom and the record shows that the spectators crammed in the courtroom with the fifty jurors were family members and members of the press by process of elimination in picking a jury for a criminal case especially the one of this magnitude it's going to be very common that many many many prospective jurors would want to have the sipar discussion with regard to cause issues and they're concerned they're just not comfortable disclosing all of that in open court and can be much more candid with a five hour discussion so i'm speculating from  that the judge stayed in the record here but he was concerned he could give the sidebar discussions to the jurors without going to a separate room so what's wrong with going to supper room and then telling counsel anytime you want to feel free to do that and i don't think anybody took him up on that offer actually your honor we printed in our brief we argued that there's no evidence that we did not take the court up on on the offer to talk to our clients about what was proceeding behind closed doors but to but we would have had to violate the turning client privilege to correct the judge in that respect at the most but what is wrong with that procedure to say cash logistically this is not the only way you can think of to do a sidebar balancing all of the other concerns but whenever you want to talk to your client feel free to do that just let me know because two thirds of the voir dire in this case was done behind closed doors including virtually all of the cars all of it and not one single defendant was able to cooperate with his counsel in being able to comment during the preemptory position or even in making other arguments for a cause as a local knowledge as to any of the any of the others aspects that which are the underpinnings of the right to be present during your trial in terms of assisting your counsel as to as during the voir dire process but by process of the point i'm making right now your honor is by process of elimination common sense it was clear that when i said this very small group i was referring to the family members handle family members in the press that were seated in the back and and the court in in the court in denying that those people be present during the voir dire process he was just he was  really defining that the public because those were the public for purposes of this trial that they could not compress and one point that you mentioned i forgot to that you just raised i forgot to mention if you look at the record on a handful of occasions the judge said you know when i say handle i'm talking about maybe less than ten well sir would you like to talk in privately about the issues that you raise on your questionnaire and most of the time in the vast majority the court never asked whether the the prospective juror wanted to talk in private or not in fact i think the second or third one after the judge should issue this questionnaire said before the judge said wouldn't  well we'll put you in chambers and then the jurors said no no i'm happy to talk about it now and after that happened for the remaining questionnaires for the remaining issues of cause the judge never asked again whether someone really wanted to go and i would suggest for fear that they would say no we don't want to go i'm happy to talk about it here and it was toward to the the process that he set up now the second critical point that i want to raise in my time is the core recall that by that i did not account for the fifty prospective jurors in the courtroom first question why in the court saying that when i made my proposal mr randall help me here what about these fifty people sitting here we're going to put them if you've got to prospective jurors sitting in the jury box so that the defendant in the public can participate in an open trial there was no discussion you just said we're not going to do it it's physically impossible and let me know if you have another way well i  should have asked and i didn't whose job is it to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial i say respectfully suggest to start with the trial court the trial court has the best knowledge in access of available to resources and the question arises didn't the judge realize that he had the authority to call upon those resources in this situation and the answer is an unequivocal he certainly did realize that and you need look no further in the record then the events of the day to the previous day before my proposal of of this record and i respectfully direct your attention to government excerpt of record sept one one seven four two through one one seven four five that clearly establishes that the judge knew how to go about finding space for these fifty jurors when he needed to what happened on day two at two twenty four pm the court had prepared a proposed questionnaire and he wanted all the fifty jurors in the in the court room to fill it out but he also wanted to have continued proceedings without their presence so where to put them not a problem the judge in the record the judge did would you expect him to do hopefully across the hall and court there after he says the delay is that we're attempting to find a court room on this floor that will that we can open and have the jurors go into that courtroom and fill out the questionnaires unquote and finally quote after and after those individuals leave the other members of the panel who are in the audience shannon will take you around the hallway and distribute the questionnaires and we will find you a quiet place for you to fill out those questionnaires because the court going to be in session we will find you a quiet place now the record is totally silent there after that any problem was subsequently encountered in finding that quiet place for the fifty jurors the court had good reason to be confident that at the drop of a hat on a moment's notice in the roy paul building he could find a quiet place for fifty jurors eight district courts how many a number of magistrates courts a jury assembly room a large cafeteria undoubtedly other locations in the building it would accommodate temporarily housing fifty people during even in that building and of course that's why the court was so confident we will find you a quiet place well what's the take home lesson from all of this when it comes to filling out a jury questionnaire with a short notice for fifty plus jurors the court does the logical thing consult with the deputy go find someplace but when it comes to the defendants and public's right to be present during two thirds of the voir dire the public to be a defendant's right to a public trial even when it could easily have been interested paid for weeks before this trial started the court says it's physically impossible and puts the burden on defense counsel to come up with a solution of treatment thank you outed quickly after the court's after the fact excuses for lack of facilities a need for work are wanting and mostly what those excuses highlight is the real reason underlying this extraordinary deviation from proper trial proceedings it was simply too inconvenient it would have taken too much time to figure out where to put them during the seven days of war dear and still preserve the public's right and the defendant's right to be present something had to give and in this trial sad what gave what was sacrificed was the defendant's right to be present in their trial and to have corona and the brown case four months five months before the trial started he wrote a letter to the court stating that his retained counsel wanted another two hundred thousand dollars to go to trial and that he was very concerned that he needed counsel to prepare for the trial and he was alerting the court well ahead of time the court rejected that letter and we know that the court did see it is on pace or it's still on pa that or if that was a stamp i'm sorry say that again i don't know that that just saw that or in fact that was a stamp signature or perhaps the click we turned it but we have an opportunity some weeks later to appear before the court again until a little bit later he did he wrote subsequent letters but think about a defendant who has written this letter he's incarcerated he presumably the what he received was this if you didn't get it at all a notice of discrepancy that appears to be signed by the judge if yours to be dated by the judge and there's nothing there what is he supposed to do he's incarcerated and his lawyer had an obligation to bring this up in rees other cases and brown and rivera corona were there with just between the clients and the lawyer regarding fees and therefore and so forth the lawyer themselves told the judge that we're having this serious problem here didn't mr estrada have an obligation to bring that up to the court because he knew that he and his client were having this enormous and in rivera corona for example the courts and we're concerned that when you have the city disputes like this that a lawyer may feel that he's being obligated to try this case pro bono i mean in this case here the discrepancy was between obligations very seriously and i agree that defendants should have the opportunity to litigate this issue but i submit the court that the correct way for them to raise that now is in a twenty to fifty five  i think at this point there's there's nothing preserved on which to remain and i think as a matter of fact it doesn't make much difference whether it's raising a twenty two fifty five or a limited bill counsel points out that that on the twenty to fifty five there would be no counsel and i think the incarcerated defendants would be disadvantaged because counsels explored the issues they've obtained the transcripts and the evidence and have submitted to the court of appeal so dispute however that the defendant did not have an opportunity to raise this before there is an established procedure that my office and some of the even the defense counsel in this group have used in the past here the defendants who are already in front of the documents but in prior cases the procedure that my office has taken is that a senate asked the district court for leave to file a motion for a new trial and if the court agrees then they then move in this court for a limited the man for that to be considered at claim at this point without prejudice to two hundred twenty two fifty five motion i also wanted to see some aspects of the record that came out of this facts are extremely disputed as i think the the pleadings in connection with the motions traditional notice indicate but a few things that just came up an argument were that picture bulgarian was characterizing the good citizen who came forward that's all g e are thirty four fifty nine he was cross examined  pointed out specifically that he did not come forward to law enforcement that law enforcement had to come see him similarly he did not say that if there is no evidence that he was working as a paid informant in this case at all he got a five thousand dollars relocation payment and as we laid out in the opposition's the most crucial notice we have found no other evidence that he was paid anything in connection with this case as to prejudice which i think part of the problem with limited that painted is totally different picture i drew i think it's a totally different picture as to degree but not character i'm aware of the scripts for cases where any payments of the magnitude that is discussed in the radio yet his trial in the declaration we've laid out that we discovered evidence of a five thousand dollars relocation payment to two hundred dollars payments from the a t f and sixty dollars from the san bernardino police department we've also laid out that we were unable to obtain records from california be any which is a now defunct agency you know your position or no your honor i think week there are those two hundred dollars payments from the a t f and the sixty dollars from the same bernardino police department but based on our investigation thus far we are aware of no evidence that he was at that time a professional informant as the court is saying that certainly was true by two thousand and nine when he testified in the other trial but i think what the government is saying is that at the time that he testified in this trial in two thousand and six you turned over all of the evidence that you had with regard to payments and even reconstruct think the evidence for purposes of this appeal there was nothing more than what the government had already disclosed and so the payments were subsequent to his payment and his work as an informant were apparently subsequent to this testimony in the two thousand and six trial is that what the government's representing no the government did disclose all payments made in connection with this case the only payment that was made in connection with this case was the five thousand dollars relocation payment that was discussed a trial however as we've laid out we have discovered evidence of other payments not of the magnitude discuss oh i see in reconstructing it for purposes of the trial you can doubt that there were a few payments made that were not disclosed to counsel but should have been disclosed yes your honor but if you are utilizing the time of the trial which is two thousand and six and then going back from that it was a few hundred dollars it was a that was it there was an additional relocation payment and a few hundred dollars from the a t f and the san bernardino police department and this is why we have absolutely no dispute that there needs to be for the litigation of this issue in a twenty two fifty five i think as a matter of practice the court does not remain and absent a finding of error there's no error to be found here on this record in another recent case the court has done exactly what the government has has asserted should be done which is denied relief in this case without prejudice so i think it all because you can see that error because the government just told us that in reconstructing the records for purposes of this appeal there were some payments that should have been because this close that weren't disclosed now about procedure and i think strong feelings about procedure are rare in context like this where there's not a dispute that there should be evidence cherry development i would i would assert however that i think the request for limited we managed in part is hinged upon the proposition that the defendant didn't have an opportunity to do this before and that's just not right they did have an opportunity to raise this before we could have been arguing after that limited remand now and they didn't do it and so i think at this point the proper procedure is not to order a limited free man but to require them to file a pointed fifty five moving on to briefly on manual yet this is claims i have a legal point and a factual point the legal point is i think both continuances the balance against a defendant six memmott rights in rivera corona the court specifically held that a different analysis applies in those cases and in those cases a balancing analysis that looks easy is it includes the expense of and as the court noted that letter was not received by the court it was found in accordance with a local rule rather order happened during the letter was the letter was not filed by the court we have the cover letter to it there was it was returned to counsel according to the cover letter and the docket entry indicates that it was rejected because it violated the rule against represented parties contacting the court after that as to as your honor stated many of his and his counsel did nothing they appeared in front of the court for a hearing on may ninth and said nothing for four months they did nothing and again it's a quite think it's important that both men yes and his counsel at least by the time of trial it was german  another letter to the court the court said i'm arson hearing that's right right so he didn't handle that july letter in the same fashion as he handled the april letter that's right so i don't know i don't think the rules have been consistently applied and i don't think all the judges and the letters from represent the defendant asking for morrison hearings in the same way frankly shouldn't the court have scheduled a hearing to take up the april letters well we have we can only h why those letters were dealt differently i would not to the court that is the reason matters the court should remain and the district court to say if i don't know that the reasons really matter i just you know you've got a defendant who is with the two and a thousand dollars to pay him through trial and so i fear that he's losing interest not working towards an adequate representation give me retain counsel and i don't want to wait until the last minute he says this is a letter i don't want to wait until the eve of there's something i would know not right about that that scenario right we're all left with the same records from which we can try and make inferences there is a difference in character between that earlier letter and the later letters and  again i don't want to hypothesize unnecessarily but the earlier letter only indicated having a fetus you know he asked for appointed counsel he did not actually ask the fire mr strada out of being dissatisfied with his representation which is what he says explicitly in a later letter indicates that he is having trouble paying for him and ask for appointed counsel and rivera corona and brown in those cases really deal with your right to fire counsel that you don't like in this case and again this is the best i can do to distinguish that letter from the later letters it did indicate only that he was having trouble affording him i do not believe he actually expressed any substantive disagreement with him at the time and then later i've known not only does he not mention anything for four months there's no request for substitution counsel doesn't raise anything four months later the complaints have changed it's wholly different set of complaints and he doesn't actually even mention the feces at the time of the july hearing at all and so one month later at a time when the district court found that he was trying to delay the trial that earlier dispute is off the record and so i would just suggest to the course of the district courts have not abused its discretion in refusing to file that initial letter that to the extent there were any six moment claims that would attached at times they were waived by not raising them when there was ample opportunity to do so and that the record supports that when the complaints were ultimately raised the issue of court followed the proper procedure under a very corona and browns found that there was not a grounds for substitution at that time on the eve of trial and proceeded correctly and so many of his conviction should also be affirmed finally dealing with the issue regarding jury selection  look we've what we've laid out the facts i think as best we can it's very difficult to reconstruct jury selection i take issue with the characterization that two thirds of jury selection happened outside of the presence of the public and the defendant we've tried to be much more specific in our outlining of facts regardless rates today the court did specifically address the proposal that was made by counsel for mr mays and found that it was physically impossible at the time which is the g r eleven seven ninety eight and later in the findings of the motion for mistrial at g r eleven ninety five ninety six when a detail as to why it was physically impossible there was never another proposal made at the court that was physically possible and i think the problem that is being overlooked tradition of the fact now is that that proposal was no way for a jury to have a true sidebar that was not could not be heard by the members of the public and the reason the public could not be shuttled in and out is because they had to be screened coming into the court room there were two metal detectors one of the outside of rubble and a secondary metal detector right outside the court room and so when the court found it wasn't feasible to screen jurors coming back and forth it literally meant because you had to run everyone through a metal detector on their way back then the court findings are not clearly erroneous the court dealt with this issue in detail and as a legal matter i would just say again we've gone through the applicable law at length the easy way to resolve it is to find any violation of farmers as we noted in this court in red and all of the cases cited by ross all find with forty three violations harmless on similar facts i think particularly here where the quote was dealing with a sounding lead difficult issues of security related to witnesses that had been murdered cooperators that had been murdered and intimidated activity like that that continue during this trial with a set of the procedures that the court adopted were extremely reasonable and did their best to balance the in the defendant's interests if the court has any further questions i'd be happy to address them there are a i don't i don't think it will take a couple of minutes i think they need to file motions under thirty five eighty to see which is what other defendants in this case have done the district court has been actively considering those motions i believe at this point one has been granted one has been denied as we laid out with respect to them a he a brother the reason they can't be decided now is because there are factual issues that the court has to revisit in the case of mr may here it may be his sentence for means the same because the quantity of drugs that he was found to have trafficked in would still be sufficient to support his guidelines level that may or may not be true with regard to manually as is also in any case the court should for now deny their claims without prejudice to them raising them before the district court in a thirty five easy to s i have three quick points to make the first is in response to the government's argument that we should have filed a motion for a new trial under rule thirty three b and rule thirty three b says that in the case of newly discovered evidence which is what the government is saying this was that we have three years from the verdict we were outside of that time frame the reason we couldn't have filed that done that procedure which the government is correct is something that is that time done when you're within that three year period that we were already outside of it by the end of two thousand and nine and in fact we didn't get the transcript on it until two thousand and ten the second point is that the government has been saying that bulgarian was not paid in connection with this case and what we're saying is that that victor bulgaria was being paid in connection with a lot of cases by a lot of different agencies and all of that needed to be turned over and so it doesn't matter that he wasn't being paid in connection with this case before two thousand and six that the point is that he was working as a paid informant and so this really is a question of extent as opposed to whether he was working as a paid informant and then finally just to make the point the position that he had the expectation that he was going to be paid for his testimony which is what he said in two thousand mind that he had been paid for his testimony so there was if anyth certainly a tacit agreement that if you deliver for us this time there's going to be more work for you and indeed there was  thank you the court excluded the jurors i mean the defendants and the public from virtually as that's majority of the larger here and all of them on all of them who are here on the issue of cost the right to a public trial is a structural defects and no prejudice is required and if in the defendants and the public are excluded from all of this it was not and as far as is the it was not an insignificant amount the the  closed door the problem with that is twofold first and foremost that reasoning directly conflicts with rule forty three and the sixth amendment right to a public trial the but the second practical reason is the defendants are entitled to participate they need to see how the jurors and the counsel as well of the jurors react to their fear of graeme's in the presence of the defendants which is where they will be for the rich in suing weeks as they sit in judgment on these very same defen them when they're facing the defendants and expressed their concerns about about gangs that was what was excluded from defendants in the public so there is a distinguish between personal embarrassments where there were a handful of those and people  talked about cause and with the vast majority of the issues for a cause about their concern about the violent boys about the gangs in the in the in the burbank area those were the issues where we needed under camacho we needed the special knowledge of our clients to be able to look at these people and and and participate in the voir dire process can you imagine in the preemptory section when i talk to my clients and say mr mason well i've got peremptory what do you think about  number seven i don't know mr randolph what do you think let him tell me what he said was here's what he said well how did he say it what words did he use how was his demeanor well i'll explain it to you the best  can that participation in the voir dire process was taken away from the defendants in this case and for no good reason because of convenience convenience that could have easily been worked out counsel said they had to s can we put them through two security measures well first one of the security measures was coming into the courthouse as this court knows the roybal building is a big building surely they could have found a quiet place for these fifty jurors during the during the jury select a few days of jury selection process as inconvenient as it would have been they could have found that place for those few days and preserve their right to be present into