carrying a foreign relations of crime of violence he was censored hundred ten months at the trial the truck with forgot to swear in the prospective jurors forgot to tell him to tell the truth mistaken decisions to deny your challenge for cause that then prompts the defendant to use a peremptory challenge and the supreme court has said that's just what they're for and if the jury that ultimately sat was a fair jury that's what the law that's what the constitution titles you too and i'm reminded of that line of cases by by what happened here because you know the judge is very clear he says you know sorry i made a oath should have been given before we started and so he takes measures to fix it this isn't something that's left alone he asks the group first whether anybody would have changed any answer and they all sort of sit there i guess but then he asks individually and they all say you know i reaffirm you know whatever it is i said more or less and with that background and the notion that if there's if there's no that that the jury that actually sat should be criticized i'm not sure where this argument is going let's look at the function of the oath of your  the french but but what he does say as we begin today is proceeding with the process known as for deer that comes from a latin term which means to tell the truth and he's telling them you know i'm going to ask you these questions we're going to have you tell the truth so that actually means to see to say but never mind so imperfect but still it seems and he does that midway through the process and at the end before the jury is sworn for the ultimate jury's for right there have been the government says this is not an error it's like you i mean i'm not sitting going to sit here and say we shouldn't swear of an ayers and shouldn't swear juries because i don't think that but it's an imperfect institutions were discussing earlier in different contexts and there's a slip to them when they were not in the room the judge then goes back and tries to fix it retroactively are they actually that's not the same thing as if they were sworn beforehand and you certainly can expect the jurors to say well yeah as a matter of fact now that i'm under oath it's different you can't expect me to do that but you don't have any evidence that anybody did i mean sometimes we have cases i'm reminded suddenly of the george ryan case where you know a juror misrepresents a juror says from it is a governess is standard practice so there is no requirement but i would say it's just something judges traditionally do it's certainly not in criminal rule twenty four which is the rule about jury selection there have been hundreds of thousands if not millions of jury trials i'm sure there have been all been sworn in but it does seem to me strange to say that there is you can't even apply a harmless  analysis to something that so far as the rules are concerned this wasn't an error to begin with i think it is an error i think it is structural where where does what makes you don't error it's not in rule twenty four as the supreme some federal common law procedural rule that requires this even though it's not in terms in the constitution in any statute that i know of in the rules or in the judicial opinions it it so basic anger and in our system that you don't need to talk about it ok i think if you i think if you rule that there is no right to have a jury sworn before board  and swear to tell you to be right in that you are this new case that the government cited that webster versus massachusetts very important case in the two thousand and seventeen case dealing with structural are in a different context may please the court brian writes for the united states i would just echo what the court has said that this was a failure to follow best practices but there's been no complaint that specific jury that was seated was unbiased or was impartial in any way the taking you know physical blanton yes we do not dispute that we think that sufficiently occurred here both for the ny or independent but we agree that it should occur at the very beginning we have no dispute with that whatsoever  but i think the remedial measures the court took remedied any potential error and that the jury that was seated was impartial it was constitutional and to whatever extent  matters the overwhelming evidence should cut against any prejudice that could have occurred here as well not to judge mckinney indicate that this glitch occurred because there was somebody new in the courtroom trying to figure out what  and the judge took the proper good enough steps as he could out to remedy it at that point in time would you draw a distinction between failing to square the ira and failing to square the pet a jury that's actually selected but courts generally drawn that distinction i don't know if we could go far enough to say it necessarily would be structural butt certainly courts have drawn a distinction between the two and have maybe look closer when the  really but certainly no federal case where a lady belatedly sworn veneer is any sort of error that cannot be remedied but certainly i mean we would agree that it's errors and swearing of the pet it sure would be a little more problematic if not