when you're honest john lennon on behalf of the apple and bruce amoco there's about three issues ultimately of raising a brief i'd like to focus mainly on the first one and the second one is almost entirely contingent on the merits of the first and then the the claim that was presented was a rose out of the fact that the foreman was later discovered after the trial the foreman had indicated to the prosecutor and this was disputed in the state trial court that he had been a former member of the guardian angels when mr amoco defense counsel found that out he requested under california law to receive your information because he wanted to probe on this further that was denied by the trial court basically enforcement i don't think that the guardian angel is a member of law enforcement and that that was the extent of his war here it turns out when the four year transcript was actually ordered up and that was actually clearly erroneous  specifically asked the jurors how there's a dispute here and finally as disputes this could be a factor that whether this was eighteen members of the panel or whether it was for the entire venire the question was not only did he asked do you have any ties to law enforcement also ladies and gentlemen have any of you been a member of any organization which seeks to promote either the rights of the victims or the rights of defendants there's been we've heard earlier proceedings there's been some dispute about whether or not this was it was access to the entire group there was a group of eighteen people but the district court in this case also said ladies and gentlemen all members of the jury panel need to pay close attention to my questions making note of the answers you would get if those questions were put to you personally so either way i think of what was happening here is either you know this foreman was in this group of eighteen and did not reveal what i think was showing membership in a group that promoted the rights of victims which is the guardian angels or when asked to listen to these questions didn't bring it up to the to the precise issue you're raising though is whether or not in federal district court your client was entitle with evidentiary hearing right and why can't the judge simply review the record why does he it because we don't know actually whether or not this person was asked that question what reasons he may have given for why he thought he should now answer it essentially where we have to find there's a i think a showing here that there has been some basis on which to get a hearing but we want to go further i would take the legal threshold first even if that were all true as a matter of law would we have to hold the membership in the guardian angels is participation in law enforcement you know you have to say it's necessarily participation in law enforcement although i have to say that after the district court did its own x party research which i think was essentially an evidentiary hearing without anyone present that and looking at what the guardian angels refers to themselves they talk of themselves as being the eyes and ears of the police and are now setting up what considers to be seems to be a crazy law enforcement academy so actually on further it's only by the actual sort of i have to say bizarre actions by the district court by not only not holding a hearing but doing its own research that the further it got the further digging that happened shows that in fact they may be more of a law enforcement agency than was originally thought so that's one advantage that we would get from the hearing on our standard view on the denial of the request for an evidentiary hearing well the standard the standard and they denied it to it went all the way through so that was perfect so having tried to do whatever due diligence he can and has been repeatedly denied to get one he now comes over to federal court and says i have a federal constitutional right i have a federal case was right there has been violated i think i've shown enough to get a hearing they wouldn't give it to me i asked several times here's why i want one the reason he wants one is because it is in five bias there is no need to show prejudice the basis on showing necessarily what do you exercise to print if in fact this juror has some sort of implied bias and by failing to reveal it in the circumstances are also he reveals the sex part of the prosecutor i mean it's not there are certain facts that this has to be selectively revealed and so at this point really all we're asking for is to go back and find this juror can we have a hearing can we find out when this person was asked whatever they were thinking of i mean in feels as if they've got a hearing they found all this out and that's really all we're asking for here and so that's why i'm not and i don't want to quibble in terms of i don't really know i guess i'm saying it's an error of law because we've done enough to show that there's a callable constitutional claim we try told her that he had one point had been a member of this group called the guardian angels but we also know that this guardian angels group is not an official on law enforcement group and they also know that it's not a victim's group so the suggests that they are in the neighborhoods to try to do neighborhood watches and work with law enforcement and well we we don't have really have that when we have these statements and arguments possible that we could take judicial notice of that to meet the type of evidence that you could take judicial notice of so i'm not so sure that that's there at all like notwithstanding the district court's going into the website just alone on the record separating that there certainly isn't enough here to want to implicate or to show that there was any type of fires not actual vies because that's certainly not the argument today and i don't believe that that has been the argument for a while i think there had been a statement to that effect and in one of the false answer that we need to see whether or not this person had an agenda to find out whether or not that agenda somehow or other prejudice someone that's what i think we did i don't know how else one can do it and that's what the hearing is for a request hearing in the state process yeah well yes actually what they what he did what he did was i think ok how i think it actually played out was there was a request for the juror information which would have given rise to by which to actually have it that was the also i don't know where or where the rules of evidence of gone but i don't see how considering the guardian angels website which i included is judicial notice i don't know what that judicial notice is something like you know when thursday fell on a certain day or this is not judicial notice and this is a bizarre thing away talking about hearing a theory is when evidence such as this which i actually think may be favorable to mr amoco comes in is presented and to have it be considered without us having a chance to review it the district court apparently pull things out of this but i'm looking at the back page and they're talking about how the guardian angels going to set up the guardian angels academy of security and police protection