concurring opinion she lists these extreme circumstances situations one of them is an actual employee of the prosecutor need to see which is juror number number ninety seven which case she also lists relatives of participants in the trial in problem that we're trying to get a response to which is factually there's no record to tell us what close cousin in that juror twenty eight mind is there in the record no there's not and and as a if we if we were let's assume we agreed with you that a close relative if if she were a close relative she would be implied we bias whether she thought she could be fair or not and so she should have been dismiss if we were to hold this you suggest wouldn't we be giving defense counsel and that sort of a perverse incentive to not challenge people for a cause or seek for the fourth year here but this is really no different from the nine hundred fifty supreme court case where the court said oh the mere fact that somebody works for the government eighteen had a working relationship with the two witnesses to keep witnesses in this case which was good which is different from the one nine hundred fifty s case where all you have is just good employees who work for the postal service and there was no actual connection to participants within the juror the the the defense didn't find out about of until after the jury's verdict but that house that relevant to the question with implied by its all the case for indicates that implied bias is a problem whether or not the person in the position of having beis imputed to them thinks they can be fair or not it doesn't it doesn't matter whether they think they can be fair it's a statement by the law i generally that if let's make it closer ok what if what if a juror twenty eight had said yeah he's my husband would you say he's my husband but that has nothing to do with it in fact we don't get along all that well i think i can put that out of my head and be completely fear would you say that her saying i could be fair with a race the problem to be quite honest in that type of relationship pug going to the wife i think that would be implied by right so that the question isn't whether the person as to whom implied bias is being asked thinks they can be fair the question is whether they're so close that the public generally looking at that would say that's just flat out unfair that can't be a fair trial the matter whether they think they can be fair or not it can't be fair so that so her statement yeah i don't think that has a do with it i think i can be fair your if if you look at the border she she was very transparent she knew that there was a relationship between her and the prosecutor the defendant was it was had notice of this particular races or what what the did the relevance of that the relevance of the notice the relevance of the notice is that she has an opportunity to to to dismiss this juror for cause or for excepted or get set that i accept that discussion let's say for purposes of argument that he he made a strategic decision or that he fouled up doesn't matter what but he chooses not to do something which in  fact is the case here if in fact there is a close enough relationship between juror twenty eight and the prosecutor that one could rightly say there simplied bias what does it matter what the lawyer thought it implied by it would be a degree in which the court would indicate that this person is so close to the prosecutors that no matter what they said that they basically could not be trusted with the evidence are you support in this matter are you suggesting that a first cousin could never be close enough fish to fit that mold i am suggesting that a better than a cousin food would not be close enough to fit that  suggesting is in this particular matter on all matters that a close relative in this matter would be someone such as a brother or sister mother or father i would even go as far as moving up a cousin in this particular that doesn't mean a good one of them have anything to do with and the courts the court with the judge with their attorneys were there they were able to look at her demeanor they were able to listen to her transparency and to and to make a judgment about this particular individual i get the feeling we're talking past each other mr meyers which you can see that if there really is a basis for saying they're simply biased that what she thinks has nothing to do with the question if they're  it doesn't matter if the person absolutely is to their core of their being believes they can be fair it's irrelevant because the question is can you in fact be fair it's can people generally look at a circumstance where you're that if you're twenty eight is a close enough relative that one could say there's implied bias that her statement that i don't think my relationship has a thing to do with it is we mean if you look at the questioning and the answers that there are there's absolutely nothing that would give the court any indication that she would be bias well actual or implied  prosecutor would be implied by however if you look at the the the statement as that might indicate that that there are certain instances where a relative of a prosecutor being on the jury would mean anything basically cut off the judge's questioning because it gave some indication that she could be fair and when he went further than asked whether you could be fair and impartial she said yes she could be that that's not close enough nor are they she is not an investigator all she does is that she hands out she's responsible for the property she gives property to the officers now the worse would have been close enough if she was right in the squad car with yes that would be close enough to be close enough if she were right in this white car but she was a fellow officer in the field and sometimes saw yes so would be close enough if she never saw  the field but she was still feel that yes i believe a feel a judge in this particular matter would be close enough so as it is it is the fact that she doesn't go in the field but she's still a police department way she issues  it not that a factor that's not close of the she doesn't leave office she doesn't have a close very close working relationship with all of the officers there were several there were several officers about that testified joanie mentioned two of the officers one of the officers i was on him from work so it's clear that there's a working relationship why is it the fact that there is it working relationship even if it isn't a work relationship in the feel enough to say  this was not an investigator this were not a police officer this will not someone in the field who they see every day who they see a crisis this is just a person in office who's handing out uniforms and bulletproof press that's not a close enough relationship