was caused by chu independent sources furnished by the prosecutors pretrial representation or three jury selection resignation that gave evidence would it be minimal when in fact this was not to be the case but al hearing which was conducted she weeks later the prosecutor represented affirmatively that they would not be introducing evidence at the bennett's gang affiliation and they said that if and if this if they were going to be introducing evidence of my understanding is your honor that the court actually at that point the fact that would be a mr paul during that because it was during the course of the the emphatic course says whatever comes up in the evidence yes what  said that's part of the evidence it can't be stricken out in any fashion all right kirk i mean that's pretty right but out of that the representation of course is that it's minimal and that it would be limited to about one question that's the what had the state's position was going to be possibly inaccurately but doesn't just slam and make a point that his commentary there after cure if any possible that i think the fact of the matter is though your honor at that point whether this evidence might be admissible at a later date whether there was a discussion about evidence that might be admissible in a later the representation and what defense counsel had to go on at that time and in fact her decision to forgo strain questioning at that time prior to jury selection was explicitly stated because it was based on the limited and quote include gang affiliation have a slogan and at least one witness will testify about the saying i'm not about that so correct but that absolutely the prosecutor came to the defense affiliation i e there would be an officer who would testify by that mr cabot reza latin king member in addition to the prosecutor at this time indicates for the parties that both mr brady and chavez the eye witnesses in former gang member so there is an emphasis on there is a big divide between here and when at the time of the incident at the time of the incident they were not gang members and in fact there was testimony that eventually  by a big divide between the state's witnesses who had turned their backs on this lifestyle and the defendant who allegedly was still carrying on with this destructive lifestyle and they all say that the prosecutor at that point indicated that there would be testimony here based upon her belief for the representation of prosecutor that the evidence gang of events would be minimal by the time that trial is about to begin or prefer that it's about so this was all very new and of course him importantly defense counsel did not know that there would be any evidence of a defendant's gang affiliation because the prosecutor said that that would not be yes but again i actually believe the backstops the defense counsel witnesses and again about the facts from the people of this larger this larger testimony even if that that's a matter of strategy mr cabot's position is that it's unsound strategy which is not protected  this case it's really more gang evidence against the state's witnesses the defendant your honor their right they do i'm familiar with those cases that hold when there is both sides are gang related it is basically attack the credibility of the state's witnesses which is a reasonable theory whether their former maniac latin disciples or kayleen i mean you have planned this by both the defense counsel and or ending her closing arguments suggested that they were not divide between the state's witnesses who are no longer gang members of turn their backs on this lifestyle have testified that they're moving on working and such and the defendant who's still carrying on in this life that i do believe might be equal i mean  i'd have to go back and look at those cases but we have a very sober amount of paying evidence which is admitted again we have evidence not only of defendants gang affiliation of the feet the  slogans that were used we have evidence in the family of officer ramos was extensive testimony about folks in the people and if there was any doubt your honour's about the importance of paying evidence in this case all this gang evidence which she objected to had been admitted already shed no choice but to use it and she used to discredit the state's witnesses suggesting they may have motives in testifying the way that they did right it is a little bit misleading and the record admittedly style kind of unclear what the prosecutor initially said which initially said was that there would be that evidence some gang evidence would present ted and then she mistakenly said that it would be very minimal and then came back at pretrial before the trial actually heard and and explained that it would be kind that the state would be calling the police officer to one aspect is going to be coming out i'm acknowledging that from the surface some of the terminology that has been used it seems like it would be unfair but when you look at the totality of the record it's clear that of the trial judge asks defense counsel she wants the judge to ask any additional questions and that is proceeding this and their commentary that the judge talks about in terms of i'm strange factors and questions that the judge would be more than absolutely proper that it comes that for that purpose and that's what it was brought in for that purpose to that extent that it's difficult to show under strickland standard that any prejudice result in this case first it was absolutely not objective leon reasonable that the defense counsel at that point would make the strategic decision not to ask additional questions on there said this was again territory there were several different things there were the right age of the people and the folks in the white disciples it's a very strategic defense strategy that they would go into that additionally and highlighted even more that as to the first part and as to the second prong and strictly it's very difficult to show that there was any prejudice we have one of the witnesses  about the head and identified the planet that night from a voter ray we have two additional witnesses who identified the defendant from of a lineup several days later we have a multitude of evidence in this case  comment that you know gaining information was pervasive i'm certainly as reflected in the r press to the strickland standard it's certainly not objective we have reasonable and it can't and there is no prejudice in this case as far as the defense was concerned and there was some mischaracterizations as to terminology initially but if you look at the entire record statement about gangs slogans and gang affiliation and this one witness being asked about it again and the judge characterized as one statement right then and there is this is not the discussion about whether  and it made sense of this case in the type of evidence that was being brought into the case and the witnesses that the people were presenting if there are no further questions the people rest on the arguments in their brief and we ask brief very briefly i'd like to return to just left him comment about the trial judge judge saks not limiting the amount of gang evidence that would be coming again rob there might not have been a limitation at that point because the prosecutor never clarified when defense counsel indicated that there would only be one question that i remember the prosecutor doesn't make any clarification at that point if the prosecutor ever say there's only going to be one question you  right i'm sorry the prosecutor never indicated that there would be one question well it seems to me that the ballot the import of the statement but even if it wasn't at the very least once the trial to clarify that certainly if that was not if that was the misrepresentation arguably defense the state's attorney had a duty to clarify if it was going to be if given the amount of evidence that was coming in certainly that would be impartial jury and whether that be from the prosecutors misrepresentations initially or a confusion at any rate they are from in effect of assistance of counsel which bottom line defense counsel could have reopened fast yeah and didn't gang evidence that was introduced and the fact that we do not know whether us anything about these jurors being unbiased deprive mr cabot of the right to a fair and impartial jury and again i'd like to point out