case the united states versus brown assault charges dropped but with respect to both of those cures the the prosecution's reason for juror seventy four was that the fact that he had  through a prism of race i will tell you in the county at northern new top where i grew up that was ninety nine point five percent white if a person had been member of your family or a close friend ever arrested prosecuted or convicted and jers seventy four answer yes to the that least he can and if the prosecution was serious about that question it seems to me it would have wanted to follow up questions to potentially strike potential jurors for collinson not just  is with respect to jerk thirteen now the government makes much about you or thirteen b b african american and health that suggest that it didn't purposefully discriminate by striking her seventy four questions on the jury questionnaire but he left the arrest question blank but he never though have some a bit to the juror it without any follow up questions on the arrests question the i will reserve the remainder of my time for  it please the court eugene miller for united states united states request this court to affirm the judgment of the district court because it did not clearly err in determining in the district court that the united states did not exercise its print f challenge it is purposeful racial discrimination certainly a serious allegation to allege that in a usa who sworn to uphold and defend the constitution the united states not only engaged in purposeful racial discrimination but then lied to the court to cover up that discrimination and if this court said in america although a defense attorney certainly has a obligation as zealously represent their client it's disappointing when they come forward with unfounded allegations and in this case defense counsel says he knows that the motives of the prosecutor he knows that a prosecutor wouldn't want to strike a juror who indicated he had been wrongly arrested  we disagree with that as the district court who was in the trial court and had the opportunity to observe the manner the demeanor of the prosecutor had and past experience with the prosecutor had an option to observe observe and did and found that in fact there was no that the race neutral reason that was offered was not a pretext for intentional racial discrimination in fact that the standard here under under the third prong is the defendant's berber it's the defendant's burden to show that the reason proffered by the united states was either outlandish or a law we would submit that record is clear it's not outlandish suggest a prosecutor would not want on a jury where the defense being offered is that wrongfully people are prosecuted all the time and that the police didn't do their job correctly would not want on that jury a person who had indicated on their jury questionnaire yes i've been arrested we disagree now the defendant on appeal has raised a lot of arguments and we think the nature of those are to me suggests that of course it couldn't be clearly erroneous the district court's finding as we can certainly like attorneys do in that when they're trying to determine in the ten minutes they have to exercise the printer yes they argue sometimes over what do you think of this jury what do you think of that are those are the arguments that the defense counsel is making here as far as if he were the prosecutor perhaps who he might think to to u se his preemptory strikes on but that's not the issue here the issue here what the defendant's burden is is to establish that the reason offered by the united states the race neutral reason was outlandish or a law and that they're far from meeting that burden and showing in fact that the district charitable to the district judge to argue that the district judge committed clear air in not addressing arguments that the defendant never raised at the district court when it's the defendant's burden to establish that the reason was either outlandish  they had been wrongly arrested was juror seventy four and what this court would also have to do is second guess the district court's credibility finding that the prosecution was not providing a protection reason when it noted that that juror had already made a list of the prosecution for the prosecution even knew the race of the juror so for the fence council to stand up here in and state that the government was not interested in the answer that question is  by the record below and in fact i think it's important to note here that's not a question that was asked by either of the parties of the question that was on the jury questionnaire and it was the juror seventy four who volunteered in response answered that they had the wrong person that they had been arrested and that they were the wrong person so it was it was the juror that put that that forward defense counsel suggests that the prosecution should have asked additional questions they certainly certainly could have but when we look at this record not based on any imprimis a bull reason and again we suggest that no impermissible reason has been shown here just briefly to again i don't think this court needs to get there because the district court in because the these arguments were for for the getting into that the other jurors as we noted juror thirteen who they know in their brief should have been asphalt questions nap in american which are in this court just recently held in the cruise case the fact that the prosecution leaves other jurors on the jury of the of the race of the juror that was stricken it helps to confirm that that strike was an exercise in discrimination torrie fashion as we look at the other two jurors i just respectfully disagree from having tried cases for twenty years in the district court as far as a dui conviction has the same effect on it as someone who has been wrongly arrested we agree to disagree on this but that certainly doesn't make it an outlandish reason that we get lots of jurors who've been convicted of traffic offenses and we stand by our position in the br if that jurors depend on of course how they appear it the poor dear having answer the questions which is not part of the record here because it wasn't raised by the defense in the district court judges have been held accountable for their criminal conduct often make very good jurors as they think other people should be held accountable for their criminal conduct and the other factor which we point out our brief is to just in a vacuum point out to jurors and say those should have been struck by the united states and you know we know better than the prosecutor that those are should have been struck excludes the jurors who were struck it's not a process as the score is well aware of just there are six jurors and only six jurors that the united states would not want on the jury the process is to leave the most favorable jurors possible without taking impermissible factors into account on that jury so in this case for example there was one juror who made the list also who had put on there i trust no one we have to compare that person is a person who had been convicted of a dui again the  course of a where of all this but i just point out to say that the argument here the monday morning quarterbacking as to whether you would exercise a strike here or there does not rise to the level of establishing that the prosecutor was lying when the thank you all right mr miller thank you mr burns thank you and mr burns you accepted the appointment in this case and then you have the additional thanks of the court for so doing th