rights due process in a fair trial and with that opening rival open it up to questions from the bench which is  and the shooting of the gang leader of the eighty's mr dove he finally found out why they were there and while sitting in the parking lot before they went into the cafe even realize that there was going to be a shooting and his code and it said now you better go in you better go in there and shoot the lever they reacted the statement down to they threatened me so the defendant mr wynn was not allowed a trial to fully bring a statement in that he so that is the legal standard that is the supreme court of law under the head standard would be the fear of the separate issue i personally don't believe that is the strongest part of this case  courtrooms and there's these four courtrooms in different trials going on ok and there's no additional security for three of us for courtrooms but for this courtroom for our defendants there is a bailiff or two standing outside the bail minutes every person going into the court room to warning them they didn't check the person then they then check their i d s then they put their out their names and addresses on another list and then go check to see of those persons have outstanding warrants people who are right past these procedures and went into another door so for weeks on end the jury saw everybody who goes into the courtroom had to be submitted to these to these extra security procedures and the defendants have to write to e mind i was not the one who was causing these acts or support from security measures or the twenty one page document declaration under seal which said whenever you know the reason for the threat is there's a threat and the judge allowed all these extra i think he would have gotten something less yes i don't know i would love to make that argument that maybe not i you know i don't know when they were forgotten but there's no doubt the jury watching this extreme procedure go on day after day up to six times a day that courtroom would be vacated and people would go in and go through warming and searching the issue what would have benefited the defendant by redacting by not or not redacting the statement that he claimed was made for him by one of the again and argue reasonably good desta he benefited from that reaction comments that this court made i think are good for confirming that reasonable application and determination to the public the only question then is whether security measures which were neutral cause the jury to believe that the defendant was somehow trial from this is not from the defendant the security measures were directed to the people who came into the courtroom now for those who are sitting there and participating in the trial the fact of the matter is that the security measures suggested probably to the jurors that there might be danger from the from the victims families from the people who are entering the court to see why or how or what happened in connection with this charge off the terror think that may have been inferred was what might happen because of the risk that the jury baby may speculate as to any matter but the point is that as a practical as it is the determination of the ruling based on reasonable application of the stablished law the faith court concluded that there was no regard to appearance of corporate card that they quote could easily believe that is the juror that the officers are there to guard against the directions emanating from outside the courtroom or to ensure that the tense worker makes changes do not your honor i would just like to point out that when this case was before the sixth district court of appeals the sixth district did find a due process violation of the state it was harmless error and when this case was before the district the northern district of california that court also found the due process violate and also claimed that it was a trial error and subject to the harmless error evaluation of chatham versus california so the beyond a reasonable doubt due process and the right to a fair trial the confidential reports and this is related to the confidential report without mr lane having notice an opportunity to be heard  regarding the security measures the judge did not loud them an opportunity to suggest less restrictive measures because they didn't know what the violation are what with the security concern