get it because of the number of that the racial background of the prospective juror so i think everyone recognizes that and that's why that's why the explanation this given can't be taken at face value because if the prosecutor is exercising the challenge of bad faith he's never going to that's why the trial court is put into i think the challenging position of scrutinizing with great care he's a text explanations that are proper so in this case for joe well i i understand that your honor and i think though that if a trial court has had in the face of of a facially valid extra explanation which was not measure up against the other factors in the case that is an unreasonable application of federal a federal law under for the if if that if if in looking back at it on a comparative basis as to what other jurors who were accepted by the granted that the crimes my client was convicted of are serious offenses and i note that apparently starts off talking about serious offenses if you look at the circumstances that led to my client's prosecution there's a traffic stop unfortunately true fact that in the history of this country to me even still today law enforcement officers have discriminated against black voters and that's what drives fear into a prosecutor and that's composition of the panel on the jury and numbers using i think you can look at the composition the panel but i but i do not believe that just that just because there may end up being some minority niggers on the jury that that means that the challenge is other minority the attorney general david cook for respondent i'd like to first point out contrary to some comments that were made in the opening argument here the a t p a does not apply to the babson claim the claim was not denied on the ask well i guess i guess i'm not quite following exactly but as far as the standard of review would be the novo and then this court would look at the factors under ballots and to determine whether a violation occurred i would like to articulated by baths and that you look at the prosecutor's stated reason for first of all to determine whether it was facially neutral and i think we're all about i think opposing counsel and i are in agreement that at least facially that reason offered by the facia case was found and whether opposing counsel has conceded that point or not the record does show that the prosecutor was never asked by the trial court to give reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge as a juror number four rather the record shows that the prosecutor went forward to the trial court to explain to the trial court he wanted to ask more questions of the juror why would not extend to the subsequent discussion on juror four because as part of the discussion for juror number twelve the court said to the prosecutor if you want more information about a juror before you exercise in the context of that discussion the trial court decided and the prosecutor decided that no further questions were necessary and at that point the peremptory was exercised but unlike the court's decisions where in finding of a prime aphasia case is found when the trial for it asked the prosecutor for reasons that did not occur in this case rather with the prosecutor who came forward and in line with the process of the trial court's prior order explained what he needed to find out more about this juror before exercising but what do you make of the comment i'm i'm speaking from memory now but it's if i recall correctly the court said what's your arm for twelve i think we're getting into the area where we have to explain your reasons something like that something like that yes so that happens with juror twelve then subsequently we have a situation and then of course the colloquy you describe that you know why don't you come forward if you have any more ask a couple questions we sat down and seems to me that in looking at the reasons given if i'm not from calling it correctly he said i don't like letter carriers write something about that yes but there were letter carrier there was a letter carrier and men on the jury i believe there was another letter carrier who was part of the panel who asked to be excused and asked about another letter carrier the other letter carrier was an african american woman and the prosecutor during the person of that occupation and in that vein the prosecutor asked the trial court ask more questions of juror number four regarding its prior i believe it was prior police experience is right and then there's also you reference experience and then it hit me appears to me just to cut to the bottom line so you can respond and it looks to me that if you analyze what the panel was largely pretextual because the jury experience of this particular person was greater than many because there were factors there were the records showed that the stated reasons of the prosecutor were under cost or controverted by other other information in the record for example  ill feeling or bias against drug users so the credibility of the prosecutor was in question in that case in this case however your honor there's no such undercutting of the credibility of the prosecutor and as i said before the prosecutor asked the trial court to ask more questions regarding the prior jury experience for guarding the prior police experience of juror number four the trial court based upon what the prosecutors said and the prosecutors and the matters that occurred before the trial court in the courtroom believed i think it was the trial court and believes that that inquiry was not necessary and that no prime a facial showing of discrimination was made at that point because he waited for the last minute i think i find that argument to be such a such that it would cut both ways have the prosecutor excused juror number twelve right after that sure was sat on the jury and immediate challenge to a person of racial might who was a racial minority i think that would send a stronger red flag of of racial discrimination or discriminatory intent than to wait if you go that's concerned about juror number twelve went to the very heart of what jurors are supposed to do interact with the other jurors in reaching a verdict in the case as juror number four the prosecutor in all candor came forward in at the trial court i'm inclined to excuse this person but i would like more information i don't like letter carriers i like that letter carrier because they were up to the other letter carrier because there were other factors that made me want to keep her on the panel but at securing of her for i need more information i don't think when you look at all of the prosecutor's conduct during jury selection in contacts you will find or you you should find and that is also you see this prosecutor who prosecute this case presume is also a very talented lawyer and the fact that he had these rationalizations you know i don't like