the jury retired to deliberate the fate of the defendant and i call him the defendant because that's about what this jury knew of mr fields they knew he was the twenty three year we know that on this jury there was a real fight in that in those deliberations as to whether the sentence would be life or death with you know that first day of deliberation and that's what prompted  and made notes and brought those notes into the jury room the next day with that make a difference it's jury misconduct i'm sorry your honor it's jury it's jervas conduct it might make a difference obviously on a prejudice analysis supreme court precedent for years has been cleared jurors are supposed to deliberate the evidence in and off of the witness i'm trying to pinpoint what your argument is are you saying it was the bringing in of home prepared notes as such or is it because the notes included some bible passages among other things or what i'm i'm not quite sure what your argument is true either well let especially in a capital case which requires state proceedings that that carefully focus the jury's discretion to weed out the worst of the worst i think the guy should die but i'm going to tell you why i think that i mean the expected to be insular we don't expect them to to sort of simply state conclusions we expect them to share common experiences of misconduct you write this and i think the jurors are supposed to be debating the evidence any instruction that's how do we square your position with the concept that you're do not check their life experience at the door when they go and at the jury room and that there is an inherent conflict in the law of punishment which essentially is based upon that you get all christian ethic of an eye for an eye for you saying that that is an impermissible consideration when it is the jury of the in my experience somebody who acts like that is lying that's perfectly appropriate if he has x ray experience and an x ray comes into evidence and he says you know what let me help you all with this because i'm a doctor that's fine the jury of course of course asked to bring their life experiences their knowledge to the evidence in the bible passages in the jury room in the absence of life penalty trial  he tell anybody at the trial what he told me years later which is i didn't want to be on this jury i had misgivings about serving on this jury but nothing came out  mr hellier during the course of this trial talks about the case with his wife remember her assailant has never been apprehended hard assailant threatened to return to the house and kill hart and you had her driver's license that he had robbed with the purse he looks like the that's the same general description his fields and he's on the streets based on these conversations and this was a one of the reasons but then also the presumption that you want to accept that i'm concerned about where that will take us in the sense that people that grow up and cry and high crime rate areas if there's a presumption because someone that you know has been a victim of a crime that that just is implied biased people are are not going to be able to get the choice that they want to get or that they're entitled to under the law i mean the statistics show for example that  i think you know that blacks are more than twice as likely to be victimized and why stay on x more than whites this well and that in terms of with respect to homicide hispanics are more than three juror and it's a low threshold triggers a heavy burden on the street to disclose procedures i don't believe in every trial there's a juror who's going to want mr hilliard went through with his wife who was told by his wife the defense you're let his wife go to the trial he says he's listening tour your honor every single night she's telling of i think this is the guy rather than demonstrating this is eel to protect his seat on the jury and if he truly didn't believe her we should all that are coming to the that this defense was the one who attacked us so that to me is the difficulty that you have to get over on this implying buys because she may have testified as you've heard this morning and which is reflected in the question you put to me is grossly inaccurate there is no record of evidence whatsoever that these conversations took place nightly for us parents i mean that and you substance of the trial which affected his ability with their own party that's not the point i take that the point is that they're talking about this every night and this is the fact that the person sitting over there as defendant is somebody that she believes trial would come to a halt at least allow the issue was resolved and he probably would have to concede would have been excused that's the virtue of your honor for having this twenty eight year old long odyssey of appeal because door with a gun of a few weeks what would the average person who got through that experience of the subject of a lot of biased if you apply the implied bias test his wife or his brother the juror had been molested and another case in which the charge was rape and the prospective juror had her self generated not her her sister so our answer is that a lot of what the problem is didn't exist at the time the problem being these conversations and whatever her emotional involvement was coming on during the trial with his wife  question yes because there is no dispute about this piece of paper with the difficult conditions judge division found and no one has challenged the fact yes in the crab handwriting of this rather self important foreman there they are importing of this piece of paper into the jury room even during this conduct during this conduct has involved those instances where a juror brings into the court into the deliberation process only the eye for the eye stuff the violation in my hypothetical way happens to have the bible under his arm and the other where he happens to have a bible and he's consulting and in violation of the court's  i think the difference is that in neither case is there a violation of the united states constitution and if so that there is no difference in that respect it's important to just go back store so you don't think that there is any problem with bringing a bible into the jury her yes and do you recall telling her that no she could not yes why did you tell her you know because i didn't want to compromise me as the juror and plus the fact i didn't want any of the psychological trauma to affect our home life why we were afraid that if she came and saw him it would compromise the jury because whatever she might suspect and supposed indeed in fact she did id him as the perpetrator right that's what i  she did right did you feel like that with a compromise the trial that was going on at the time of course why is that because if she i d d him then that would invalidate me as an objective  biblical verses included and very deliberate issue yes your honor because it would be a structural error if your hellier is a biased year or so you would have to get to the penalty phase issues