by the parties and by the court here the prosecutor struck the first two or three black near enough with explanations that should not have been building this must overturn the lower courts  should not turn is my first point the prosecutor's reason for striking mr coleman should have been rejected on its face the supreme court give any reason it just has to make sense and it has to pit racially neutral on its face and not protection which is the second issue here if you could have made it to mean areas he did do that the prosecutor also didn't make the claim this family member still have questions about that i think that's pretty reasonable that family members would sort of questions about someone murder but the prosecutor didn't even ask those questions and that was the only thing he said hey that's a civic answer he also could have asked the member who may have had a past drug case and the prosecutor gave that as his reason for striking this fall if you know it was out of this wills with the same issue they were different types of relatives but th really abstract it's clear from the record the court actually used the word theoretical in discussing the differences between one person but a relationship with a nephew and another was a relationship with the brother appeals court can imagine a reason that might not have been shown as false and miller of the prosecutor gave an initial reason and then when he was challenged by defense counsel he abandoned it and he came up with an entirely new rea and the u s supreme court said that that reeks of afterthought and that it which it it seems like to make way that they're not going to entitle it before that any credibility where he didn't even try to defend the initial reason given this is slightly different but the same analysis of lies here the prosecutor was challenged and instead of explaining himself he said he's not required to say it's stood up his original reason is that this false brother had a drug offense but the prosecutor have the jury questionnaires and he said it was a matter of producing and it was a matter of several cases and without the jury questionnaires it's  question here that i'm sure that i'm so miller l said that you're supposed to examine the entire record and the jury questionnaire very well base of san shou prosecutor assertion about what was going on in this hall now with regard to albert coma i think it's significant that after the prosecutors said he was vague and he was people were involved he made it sound almost like a mass murder he says well there were several holes mostly first cousins it might have been second cousins to he made it sound like it was it was quite a slaughter and the fact that he was ok welch was asking home and he says i want to ask you about your family situation any of those murders are homicide drugs and he said well there's there are still pending i don't know there are questions a family has questions and he says how close three individuals killed their first cousins he said first cousins and second cousins majority first cousins the prosecutor had asked him if you had several family members murdered do you mind telling us who they were and his answer was they're not from this town small town danville are you and he says how many were murdered do you mind and he says well several just several have mayan friends perhaps it was mistaken is that it heard it was because he said that the family still have questions and he that they're still pending he made it sound like it was one incident to me i mean if they're if they're all still pending it's it's kind of more than once a devil of it all these why should we be here the prosecutor said the same things that you're saying well which goes back well he doesn't i mean me you know it's it's pretty pretty br to juries but even welch to have a comeback for this one i mean he was when the prosecutor said you know he was pretty pretty may well have nothing to say about that he he didn't have any rebuttal whatsoever and  he had he had something to say here that you know they're both program later charges and he saw no distinction there that was his rebuttal to that answer  when he he had nothing to say with regard to our home and because he apparently was concerned enough that he questioned albert home and about this situation to see if if he would be maybe  more prosecution oriented or because of these murders but everybody thought he was dodging all the questions put to him i mean the prosecutor actually make reference to her brother apparently he knows what we do because a jury question here i mean she might refer to it it's more intimate that it was a single case but he says it's a matter of producing the prosecutor but you know from his files probably the state's attorney's files and the circuit clerk's files and and the jury questionnaire how much is going on with the brother that and that's what he conditions and charges that it's not a single incident but it's the whole package here i mean she has her little deceptive practices which he says that's not that big a explanation by the prosecutor and evaluation by the judge whether the prosecutor is honest and articulating a nonracial reason for each challenge so johnson signing that you have to look at the trial court has to look at the drug related charge one had the nephew with drug related charges and that's where the trial judge went into further explanation or maybe analysis as to why there was a difference from point two of them  is it there that you're saying that the trial judge was making it up and evaluation of the prosecutor's honesty i think that's in this i mean the federal courts at least don't require that consider what the prosecutor is saying to try to decide whether he or she is coming up with a a pretext   brother who apparently have a far more extensive background in drug related cases then then this will stick i take it but  had identified as a potential distinction as to why would that that would be an unfavorable your for the state and it was a non race related reason would it be appropriate for the court to identify ignore the record evidence for the court either it's not just limited strictly to the prosecutor's reason it's now if if there was some i'm disclosed factor in the jury testimony i guess that would make it a little more difficult here  well the one juror saying you know it's it's in have you the other one says it's a brother if if that were not apparent from the record it would be inappropriate for the court to say well based on that jury questionnaires or something like that to be extracting things that were quite as readily apparent but mr welch was saying they were precisely situated consider the prosecutor's demeanor credibility and that this factor into the equation but i still think the court has to consider the record evidence as well especially the testimony they give during jury selection does that adequately answer  first this thanks that the jury questionnaires might rebut your argument are they responsible for supplementing the record with the jury questionnaires are you responsible for asking for the jury questionnaires to be part of