with his then girlfriend really should join her joy or happened to be the previous girlfriend of the defendant and is the mother of two of his children the other two witnesses that are important here are charging franklin williams back tire franklin was a resident of a house she really didn't report it to the police but what he did was to drive so that there was an opportunity for more shots to be fired isn't that enough to find him accountable approached the car they did not go looking for him foster enjoying or happened to be walking along the path vague foster that approached yelling and swearing at newbern and then when all heck broke loose and guns were drawn and shots were fire stop they are stop right here if you were to continue straight foster is standing right here so he would continue shooting directly into the car if you were a bad guy she would have turned around shot face right into the front windshield and gotten bo house excuse me she heard the sounds she could have seen something but her testimony was she could not see into the car it but then she said something this be reconciled as it looked like  driver was the shooter and then there's the fact the question arises whether or not maurice really was the shooter but but you can't reconcile her testimony that she could not see in the car yet now she claims he was the shooter it just doesn't make sense if you can't see the car can't area he did not remain in the area he drove north to get out of the line fire he went around and he soon three blocks away so he was at least four blocks away sorry three blocks away from where the shooting occurred and then he called his brother to get the heck out of there so panel there was one woman ultimately selected for the jury which says in person and there was one woman carole middleton will selected as the sole alternate so the question the basic issue revolves around the five remaining women jurors two of whom are included that she had a burglary to her home she had a friend who was arrested on drug charges or believe convicted also her grandmother was assaulted and it would be an extreme hardship to serve the prosecutor chose to keep her but the defense attorney did print really cha  she had a relative and again it depends on which part of the record you're reading and whose brief you are reading whether it was a brother or cousin but it was a relative who said years prior to the trial was convicted of a third drug offense and was deported to  studies i took classes to the king county courthouse all the time to observe of course to to observe criminal trials i even brought a class in here to observe this court in oral argument and i believe justice mclaren's head take and spoke with the students i finding it was in big us i'll grant you that there was clearly the fine print fish case for the racial discrimination but they continued on the discussion once they finished talking about arrogant kane who women had to be black the go on even if he was interrupted he didn't ask about it continue to ask about james he didn't ask about it goodness my position is that there is no clear finding here in that because it's obvious that the judge understood the law you understood the attorneys in this in this instance in this case room where the pattern or strikes there was no pattern or strikes as stated there were nine people to nine or ten two or three depending upon how you read it i think one was the same  earlier they're different races they are different backgrounds so those practices are simply not consistent dates not a situation where the only thing about them is that they're women and lastly the gender of the defendant the that being expelled from the country being deported is a very major factor a very big fan and there's no reason that the assistant attorney in this case mentioned when she had gone to the court before yes it's not uncommon for people to go and sit in court and watch it's not on how common for people to go who is part of the class or perhaps even by themselves although i would guess or the retired people would be more likely to do it attorney asked the question that causes them concern your argument is that the prosecutor should not be required to press and ask for war information that might cause prejudice or  twice at the other people then got back into the car and they want to way i think the most important point here is that there was no further shereen or through turning as there is in this case there is also no indication and i believe  the other in very important thing besides this driving around the upper sides dry and then turning instead of continue to sleep i mean forced to certain can't catch up with the car and yet they don't continue to flee this way also is that there was sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could determine both that the defendant was guilty as the principal because miss franklin did say that she believed it was the driver doing the shooting and although all three of the casings were found out on the street to recruit one was more out in the middle of the street and we don't know what happened if those before  but she said that she saw the sure and believe that was the driver she also said that the shooter was black so she could see in the car at least in a certain manner she never said she could not absolutely see a car is heading north and central chasing after the car so no matter what direction a car away foster was going to chase it so here you have maurice drive north trying to get away from foster who is shooting at them  and he could have very easily turned around and shot the bad window where the hole was in the windshield and then that casing on the back seat by the loser seat and then he turned around to go the opposite direction from the crazy man chasing them shooting over the message mr allen says that there was no firm finding out about the kind of fish case the gender discrimination that's true there was also no firm finding that there was no official case there was no whining that's part of the problem here it's ambiguous and i said before that i think it's reasonable to conclude that the judge found that there was a translation case because he didn't continue asking about the other women not just the black women who were concerned in the racial discrimination no one of the other things that is driving said is that there was no pattern of strikes by the prosecutor when you look at it there were seven  there was only one reason given and that was that there was the best from her garage that was left and reported there were two reasons and the second reason was the prosecutor said to the jazz i you know she was the only black they had enough itself under yes yes you were saying that was an erroneous conclusion ok and just as an aside there are many times in reading transcripts of your honesty face to yourself that if there is an issue that comes up during voir dire that seems to be something that should be addressed