court i would like to reserve for strikes over the objection of over the bats an objection of plaintiffs which the trial court then overruled with absolutely no explanation as to the possibility or persuasive ess of the purported reasons for those strikes this is a violation of batson and its case law makes clear that a race based all right as to only one of any of six of those not what were pointed to black you told yours of no you that every single juror black and white that were questioned in those nine questions were then record to strike to standard is clear error your honor in clear etc it's a higher standard is it not clear on your honor in clear air that standard could be met when this court has a firm conviction that a mistake has been made had the trial or consider and personally coleman yes you know i'm a follow up i'm sorry to interrupt what if there were to permissible  of the evidence do we have to affirm in that situation it went through its analysis or it least whatever analysis it did but looking at the record is a whole do we have to erm under the standard you and john griffin just discussed no your hon then no matter which conclusion they reach we have to affirm under the standard of or it's cracked does that make sense so my question makes sense i'm not sure i follow if we if if one of the views is th want to say are you asking us to really apply to novo review rather had to decide that was their explanations were not in fact the true explanation that can't be right your honor the argument is that at bats and rd step while there are race neutral reasons given that the nd step the court the district court under toure as ramos has an affirmative duty to consider all of the evidence and way that are the possibility and part of those race neutral reason that we're not done in this ca the presumption we start with is the judge follows the law and the party who is appealing who is alleging error has the burden of establishing the error and that how how do you rebut the presumption that the judge record the court simply links at face value the race neutral reasons that were given at the nd step with no further analysis as this court found in a court would have found that these purported experts and retired if he asked a juror number eight teen in the desperate question again and six out of the experience or your experience with him that would prevent you from being fair and impartial in this case and the answer was i don't know your honor yes as to that it's done your honor if you read this in context it appears that billy didn't have enough information about his son's situation to know whether that would impact him but as miss coleman it's asking in this case would it prevent you from being fair and impartial in this case i don't know your honor and most lawyers anyone that says that would strike that person most trial lawyers in my experience irrespective of race gender or anything else if the jerk says i don't know i can be fair and impartial they would strike them so why isn't that a permissible reading of the rock your honor i am that time and it's your and indeed when analyzing a basket decision at the trial court we are great deference to the district courts that's finding that's because the judge is in the best position to ascertain these issues so with that in mind miss coleman address here the trial court listen to three rounds of argument including including permitting the pellet to submit a revolver there are cases in sr circuits that hold that this alone is enough and in fact it would be happy to provide the supports decision from earlier this year mitchell heeler rowse d upholding that fear rejection of batson motion without explicit findings does not violate the law here our judge was highly involved in the border questioning he was aware of the record as to why the judge would accept the rationale for a strike of i don't know why i struck them but it wasn't race so here and i'm jumping back to that nd prong in analyzing the read into reasons for the had two children that were parked rated with one that was still incarcerated he was alleged to have assaulted at least one child care and finally he was asked on to quote two different occasions whether he could be fair and impartial once by the district court and once over jurors sixteen and twenty six were also stricken just like number seven they had family that was in law enforcement and they were white seventeen the cuyahoga county jail nurse to juror twenty two now appellant in their replies flat out misconstruing the evidence when they say that this jury number twenty two was a nurse and a juvenile so she was not she  six months and then for a total of two years or another year and a half she worked as a parent as to juvenile facility and she testified that she did not handle inmates or persons involved in alter patients like juror number seventeen d can be fair impartial and during court questioning of whether the jurors with family members in the prison system could be fair and impartial jury eighteen was the only one that was on that issue it was all there says they could be impartial mr eight rationale which would automatically excluded your for cause would be sufficient race neutral reason that it would it not i mean if if if the jerk does not qualify for cars the jury must also be excluded so that was it wrecked that would be correct or all the one way that this jury did differ from some of the jurors that were stricken for calls is that instead of a very solid and affirmative i can't be fair and impartial or i can't pay attention to the that to that effect then i know it's not really what you argued but smith can i ask you the flip side of that question which is what your friend on the other side was bringing up which is if this juror was if there was sufficient evidence from which you couldn't challenge for cause why i mean to you and me is is that anything we should use against real basis is they can't be fair and impartial or they're equivocating is when they can be most district judges would strike them for this cause os we're trying to figure out the patent got its case but is it really secure eighteen it was not just the fact that he was holding whether or not he could be fair and impartial and you'll see from the tractor that there are questioning is designed to really get behind the moreover he did have a family member it's that were in currently incarcerated and as described earlier several other of those jurors that had family members that were involved in the prison system or that had been in the that's again we're trying to transport ourselves in the minds of trial counsel who at the time had a couple other of for cause challenges i think here this juror in particular was really waffling and going back and forth it was a little bit different from the other jurors that were stricken for cause given there of very very firm statements that either they could not pay attention during the trial because they had family members of medical issues or that they could be fair and impartial so i believe that those circumstances if you look at the thread will see why it was chosen to be a peremptory challenge as opposed to a four cause challenge and as far as i know all the authority in court says that to the point mr smith made it is not true that the two arguments for desperate questioning are inconsistent the case law shows there can be too many questions targeted at african americans and the nd point of that when there is no questioning the distinction there is that there is no question on the specific purported reasons of course the strikes it's not the argument that because there were no question at all that is evidence of the point is there are no questions asked asked to the reasoning reported to the race neutral reason there were no and her job to the jury there was absolutely no by the trial court to bring out that this juror had it you know sion and again absolutely no questioning at all state asked to her relationship with her uncle that's not the issue of the word race neutral reason that she can be fair and impartial in this case she has subsequently asked as to the specific charge of concealment as to the charge of concealment can you be fair and impartial and she responds that's not fair if you read this together at best there is just  as to being fair and impartial and again as an auteur no jackie and mahoney if they were truly concerned about this ambiguity you would expect that there would be questioning to clear up any misunderstanding before getting to the point of a strike and jackie o your to ask follow up questions undermines the persuasiveness of the claim concern given all of the evidence here towards pretext in this case we can see that at least one of these peremptory strikes w