the warden suggests that there are and cites three cases state cases for the proposition that there are similar or less egregious criminal histories of petitioners who have been given three strikes sentences in california that's simply not true the three cases cited one is people versus terry there was absolutely no information given on the criminal history of that defendant and in fact that case was remanded for remeron motion in people versus montana as the court noted that there was at least there were at least ten felony convictions and four prior prison separate prison terms for that defendant no information is given specific will be specifically about what those phony convictions were and in goodwin the defendant had to burglary convictions numerous drug convictions battery and pending charges of spousal abuse and torture offense so i think that it's very oppose this proposition in one state alabama a defendant in mr earles position could have gotten a discretionary life sentence but he would be eligible per for parole after no more than ten years in vermont also a discretionary life sentence was available but the the defendant would be eligible for parole after just twelve months in this case under california three strike law the minimum is an absolute minimum sentence in other words there is no good time credit available mr earl will have to spend a minimum of twenty six years in prison before he is even eligible for just ask that one question that would you know solve the whole case for us just why don't they ask that one question that is a discussion of the evidence and it's also very important to note that the clerk came in the middle of the discussion there was something that was held before him so it was it was imperative that the judge hold my hearing bring those jurors in question them immediately asked what happened and then the record would have been clear whether there was prejudice or not what was said by whom and as we say we quote the smith versus phillips case united states supreme court case on page seven of our reply brief the court there said due process means a jury capable and willing to decide the case soley on the evidence before it and the trial judge ever watchful to prevent prejudicial occurrences and to determine the effect of such occurrences when they happen you hear the court never determine what happened the court didn't hold a hearing asked those jurors when first asked the court said it was point of white here to the jurors but then it did not and then it wasn't till three months three months later of being given the opportunity for an investigator to go out in the field and ask the journal i mentioned that you already have this constitutional error in the failure to conduct a hearing after the to two petitioners requests for judicial notice of the documents for numerous reasons they were not presented to the state courts they weren't presented to the district courts and most importantly they're irrelevant to the issues that are before this court law no your honor that's the that's a political question that that may be set before the good citizens of california to decide and this is it and if the people of california decided the three strikes law needs to be revised then that's to prevent a determined but as it is there are three strikes stands right now it's been found to be constitutional in cases less extreme than this one theoretically although it is it is merely the opinion of one elected official in los angeles county it's not a judicial finding of anything in so far as the question presented in this court  crime that intrinsically involves violence is a very serious crime that that's that and that often is the course of well where leads to violence and very serious violence at that and additionally even though the crime is so serious there although it may not inflict physical violence in every case i would submit that it's a crime that creates very serious and real trauma upon its victims to when the sanctity of their home is violated  three six separate residential burglaries so far as i understand three separate convictions the first two involving jail time the first one and eighty eight offense involving two hundred eighty days jail time the second one that's my understanding yes and what's what's particularly significant in this case in my view at least is that after being released from prison this defendant then offended again apparently very shortly after being released from prison for the use of burglary convictions by being caught in possession of a loaded firearm as an extra and now this this conviction this this offense happened at a time when the defendant could have been deliberations right then and there which would have been a very cumbersome procedure to do at that point the court did allow the defense to question to the jurors in question immediately after the verdict was rendered committed this misconduct and on the record here it is everything appears to be quite reasonable they think it does there's there's nothing beyond speculation to suggest that they were saying anything other than criticizing the coun counsel's objections and the way they carried out the trial if that's misconduct we're going to have misconduct in every case there is a jury i'm afraid we're just about every case because i mean human nature you know is that and and and the nature of lawyers when put in the same room there is going to be some some discussions given that you know that the lengthy nature of the proceedings in the questioning often in these criminal cases side a very specifically interim areas that the judge that the the prisoner that mr ramirez had been a model inmate during the six years in prison makes note of the people who came to the courtroom in support of him that morning in the ninth circuit  but the court looked beyond the labels of those convictions to see what actually happened in this case there's never been any contention that violence or or weapons were involved in any of the burglaries and mr earlobes argument was that when you invade conduct claim the court did not allow all the defense immediately after the verdict to go out in you jersey in fact it was about three months after the verdict we're the jurors were finally  well there was a hearing your honor set two months after the verdict on no november thirteenth where the jurors were asked to come into court and say where they allowed their  they were going to submit to interviews the wrong jurors were called by the court and then the next month there was another hearing that was twelve eighteen already which is three months later with thirty three jurors appeared in opposed seven jurors the other seven