makes the courts shut the mercy for mr jefferson i'd like to start out before i get into any legal arguments just getting an overall feel for this case i kind of innocent that's been the case you've got ten years the kind of the same conclusion so i understand you've got specific objections you want to present but i don't understand your case to be and don't think it's very strong of presented as a an actual innocence case client maintains his innocence but the attack isn't simply i'm innocent they couldn't convict me on this evidence the attack is much more specific with regard to particular that the bias of the jurors so you might want to focus on that you again the evidence is very very flimsy let's look at it objectively and say you know this is what we think he has that right and and i hear acts of interest i'm bringing up here is not something i need a little question about who committed the shooting the question there is either a happened one way or happened the other the evidence is limited because nobody else was there to say right now now again my point is that the trial court had found that these were not dying had a very volatile relationship we know that that's him had raped my client my client had hit the victim all kinds of stuff was going on these guys had it in for each other you know anyone could have made up anything and there was no chance at all for anyone to say well that is the only evidence constantly about each other so you know overall we've got a very flimsy case and then i want to go specifically on to the on to the teacher's and my point we've got a juror who's a born again christian or he stated that he was a born again so i think in that situation you're going to have a judge that should have sort of would have been legally required to say look this is come up as you being a born again christian can we ask about you know what religious beliefs you stereotypical as the allegation you're making about a born again christian i mean it's an astonishing allegation to say that the someone professes to be a christian of a particular adjective that you're going to assume that they've got a bias and despite  the the statement of a juror in response to an inquiry by the court that it was not with not biased and without prejudice him you're prepared to accept the stereotype that plainly must so the judge has got to dig deeper in the face of the context when your client's lawyer isn't seeking any further inquiry best i can tell means there was no limitation that i saw being put on your client's counsel to ask additional questions or pro there nothing else was asked about so why should we assume now counsel shoes i would i would say his feeling was probably like this is so out there i just have to get this guy off the jury meeting and we also have a situation where we've got a juror who was stonewalling you know so what we have on the record at that point is a juror implausible so we've got in the beginning we've got journey twelve clearly not being honest i can even say you know it's this is a matter of application of facts or a finding of facts and it's an unreasonable finding of fact that mr march on it could have just made this entire thing up so we haven't got a question which are number twelve saying yes i made those comments but i can be i can be totally fair got a question like we've got a situation where you're number twelve says i never said any of that stuff this guy t  tracked me down and reported this you just made the whole thing up so i just want to make that really clear and then second let's just go to this so there's this point about the born again christians now i'm not placing any value judgments on his ballot and his good that's not what this is about for me and all this is about you know looking at a particular scene whether it's born again christian or say the quaker we know that quakers have certain views we're not saying that right or wrong you got a quaker on a death penalty case you know  woman who brought the whole conversation up the context of the conversation which was trial's going long she was concerned about whether she would be permitted to stay beyond five days and was concerned about her employer those of us who are familiar with the trial context your mistake or to know that the five days was generally a limit that employers pay for jury service and likely as not  juror was concerned about having to go beyond five days not being permitted because of the concern about her employer i bring those up not because i'm kept getting this from marconi but they illustrate all the facts in which that there is nothing to do about the determination of the trial good fed and it may be irrelevant whether he made an error because that's not or what this person believes they're born again christians for instance do not all share the same view on lots of issues and not all of the same political persuasion at whatever the he say well i think i i'm just not sure who to believe or do you really have to proud of and say look you know just tell me you know what what exactly does your church believe that ok i think we've covered it all