purposeful discrimination because the government's reasons actually for striking two of the three hispanic jurors is not supported by the record does not survive a comparative analysis and do not can constitute reasoned explanations on the jury panel the government struck only the two hispanic teachers even if you consider that this is a professor one of the jurors mr next bomb was that assistant professor it's objection against teachers is this johnny can't read theory that they're more likely to help people is only they'd be educated then they went be committing these crimes  highly educated man i believe he has two master's degrees in civil engineering and at the time was an engineer for caltrans there was no educated people on trial here it was not a situation where  simply committing a crime because they can't do any other job so i had no reason explanation for this specific case the next reason that the government stated was she has experience with foreign documents and the others don't have that again this is not supported by the objective facts mr haider during forty years said her experience with foreign documents is because she immigrated from mexico there were two other juries well one she immigrated from scotland and had experience with foreign documents the other one immigrated from the former soviet union and had experience with foreign  year this is a case where we're going to create history through documents after the fact you would want someone experienced in documents in that type of case another juror that i forgot to mention in the sample this was very important because the documents actually whether or not the foreign documents were in order to determine whether or not the contractors would get paid and were evaluated by the u s government so she had vast experience with foreign documents more so then mr hay that the government's final we really don't mean what that the prosecutor means by will this experience translate well with others and if you just look at mr he does experience she seems to be comparable again to the germans who also immigrated from a foreign country they had children around the same ages they were both married to engineer husbands judging by the she has experience with the foreign documents she's immigrated from from another country and if you're sitting in the same age you know the only thing missing feature with her is she's not a teacher but again only the hispanic new kind of what i characterize as a new factor that the government never cited at the time of the that's an objection and was a reason that the district court relied on henri man this court cannot or reviewing court cannot look at reasons that weren't experience researching foreign documents there i get that connector somewhere according to the government not according to me if you look at the colloquy begins on page i documents is through her own immigration later on she does talk about her but she's a researcher all she says is i'm a reacher searcher also i've done research so i'm too sensitive the use  that's not clear from the record that they should follow up and question the individual juror about that reason mr we had fifteen minutes to conduct for here and never asked any questions of mr hayden is not trying to clear up anything about whether or not she was a researcher of foreign documents or had any for undocumented experience other than what she stated was her own immigration to the united states like  turn to the reasons for mr rodriguez again the government now is cleaning a new reason and that is that they're relying on the fact that mr rodriguez  and look for different reasons in that case one of the jurors need to comment that well the death penalty need the you may get someone needed a break and the death penalty because you really don't have to suffer the supreme court at the time of the facts and challenge the prosecutor didn't mention that reason at a later batson hearing the prosecutor says well one of my reasons for striking that juror was his statements on the death penalty the supreme court says filing by by making a determination relying on the brother and relying on the research documents that weren't present in the original once the other thing about about the brother is not even clear and the prosecutor saying here well it's the same agency that's and so they might be biased against the government well there's nothing in the record that says what agency product who is arrested by the mr rodriguez that actual statement is he's crossing in mexicali to mexico for all we know he was arrested by mexican authorities or say it was community united states sometimes these cases are turned over the state of california but the real issue is gave again and the government didn't take any opportunity to question mr rodriguez about whether or not this so called being hassled at the border would carry over finally  married and supposed could be considered that no state in the community there are other unemployed people and it's not even clear that mr rodriguez was unemployed there is a misstatement on the government's brief where it's where they're talking about the court's objection it says that he worked in the chino valley school district the transcript actually says he works in the spring valley area so none of these reasons good morning michael we the united states there was no purposeful discrimination in this case two strikes that the government used against these two jurors were properly exercised in judgment solace held a hearing on that and found that to be the case she found the taruta indicated that he had been born in meridian mississippi and he proffered in meridian mississippi the testimony of his mother and his father to counter that the government had discovered that santa dines father had worked for  michelin tire in algeria and had the employment records that were kept by michelin tire to show that he was in algeria on the date that he was supposed to be present at his son's birth in mississippi so we have not only the foreign official records from algeria that were created to support their position but there were also government offered documents that showed from michelin as french company in the government was aware of that in making these th selections miss oh hey there was a professor at san diego state envoy thier she stated that i am familiar with the forms also from france which is not my country that's at page one  one ten each country seems to have certain details that sometimes it's kind of hard to understand and you have to interpret a little bit and that's where i come from and it's that interpretation and her experience with french documents form documents and research in particular that was a particular concern in striking her here do i prefer to strike teachers yes do i have the luxury of striking every teacher from the panel no and when that occurs when there are a group of teachers that exceeds the government's right then you must determine ok which one of these individual jurors can be struck or should be struck in this case and the factors for mr haider are very clear she is a researcher i am a researcher and also i have done research and i am sensitive to the use of official documents for whatever let's say conclusions we can or we should try to nothing the record on their part is devoid of any response to that the court issued a rule and a similar thing for mr rodriguez he indicated that he had a personal gripe at the border i knew that in this case i would be calling witnesses from the united states customs service from the immigration and naturalization service to talk about customs people how to cross with the inspection process is how the records are kept i was aware that he had a personal gri in this case against people who have prosecuted his brother now counsel says well you know some of those cases go the d a s office or one of the cases prosecuted by the d a s office or by the united states attorney's office investigating agency and all of those cases still a customs service an immigration service so whether it's d n a or u s attorney his gripe is with the people at the border who do the inspection and that that was his problem his concern i didn't want that bias carried over into the jury's determination his race had absolutely nothing to do with the government's determination for a strike him as a juror he had a problem with this brother and he had a problem with this personal gripe at the border though that again was something raised with the original i said that he had a personal pride at the border so i the issue that i brought up with him and as far as there being an error in the brief there is no fair the court reporter in this case issued a correction to that page and the corrected tahj does say that he had last been employed by the chino valley school district that the reaction is a matter of record and it's not that he i did not want an expert in that jury room in contrast it was i don't think are personal or individuals experience will translate with i think they had their reasons given thing do not support what he everybody having a sort of a shared view of what the context is a statement of the would not translate well  may not be precise enough but then if nobody calls it through the attention of the court is something a little more what you mean won't translate well objection your honor the doesn't it sort of what's the thing go through and now we're sitting here a long time after and where the district judge who was there has gone through a hearing and did have the benefit of s in the reasoning is solid because it's the best in context itself that puts a prosecutor i've noticed he better at that time state his reasons in the most specific way he can and the reasons he's saying now is different from the reasons he said there and that's enough to infer discrimination in this case just real briefly mr rodriguez on this chino valley versus spring valley i'm sorry i was not school district is basically i think just east of here and it's approximately two two and a half hour drive from imperial valley are from calexico where mr rodriguez lifts and as  focus of the government's argument of he had a personal right well that may be one legitimate reason but this core in the supreme court held that when those other reasons don't show up such as  case i don't think so because when she made this determination it was several years after the fact and she didn't rely on anything like what i remember the jurors the meaner and i don't i remember mr weitz demeanor it was her reviewing the cold transcript just as you're doing and so if there's any deference to be given it shouldn't be great in light of the procedure of those cases we know that i mean do we know that she didn't remember that the trial and she didn't remember the circumstances rodriguez among other things among other transcript she read and she doesn't mention any point during her ruling that she is relying on any contemporaneous observations of demeanor or anything that would have well back on to me you