thompson i was planning to concentrate on the issues of the use of a semi anonymous jury in which the jurors were referred to by numbers instead of their names throughout the jury selection proceedings and trial numbers with their names but the defendant according to his declaration was not allowed to see that list by his attorney his attorney might have been willing to show it to him if he had asked for it but the attorney doesn't recall that he did ask for it or that or that he that he could have asked and he didn't defend it didn't know that he could ask to see the list we don't even know whether the defendant knew that there was a list all he knew was that he was the jurors were all this procedure cannot be used except upon findings of a particular rise and there are a number of cases that that have have upheld the procedure where the juries were what is minute yes it is maybe it's corpus case and there are there is no united states supreme court case directly on point but we're relying on soma county courts i know of other cases in which objections have been made there are routinely overruled and so there's probably that's probably why the lighted make objection but we do also have a contention that it was ineffective assistance  far as they did they were mistaken basically they brushed off this contention by saying that the defendant hasn't been able to show how he was adversely affected by not knowing the names of the jurors but we made a motion in that court as we did in the district court for a transcript of the of the jury why you're proceeding so that we would be able to show for one thing whether there were some jurors that expressed suspicion of the defendant because of this the your implication from it that it might not have had to do anything with the defendant but the judge just what the judge told the jury was you're anonymous if you have a right to be anonymous under california law let me do this to protect your privacy i think the judge said that the state but he indicated that that's what he was being then fall for the jury's privacy right though we know for this record that there is a before the jurors are brought into the court room there's a symbol in it in  jury services office and they're given a sort of an orientation by the jury services supervisor and it's part of that orientation that they say one of one or the other or two things  refer to yourselves by name but only by number two this is either for your protection of your privacy or for your protection so we don't know exactly what happened in this case we never had an opportunity to interview these jurors and find out what they were told that we do know that in other proceedings they are told this is for your protection of your privacy or simply for your protection but to figure something's up in the next case why is this why why are we having to be referred to only by numbers in this case there must be something about this defendant that would be a danger to us if he knew what our are names  had known their names he would have been able to ferret out and but we made motions that couric we've made a motion for an evidentiary hearing in a district court so that we would have an opportunity to obtain a transcript of the jury know please the court danger let senior assistant attorney general for the respond in this case and i have just a couple of points to make the first is that this case has been argued throughout in the california court and the district court in the briefs in this case as a challenge to the use of an anonymous jury and we just heard this morning for the first time i think a more accurate characterization if it's even relevant at all and that is it's a semi autonomous excuse me senate semi anonymous jury there is no doubt from the record that the jurors were identified on the record only and in the court only by juror badge numbers but it is also equally clear that the court and counsel had lists of the names of jurors and there is no doubt from the declaration of the attorney for the petitioner in this case that had his with his client mr thompson requested it he would have shown him that list and all truly anonymous juries the courts have consistently found that that procedure was constitutional and as i think was developed during some of the questions this morning the critical flaw in the argument that counsel wants to make on beha thompson is there is no united that supreme court precedent which compelled the state courts to find that this was an unconstitutional procedure and in fact went directly asked is there a case on point and he said no there is no case directly on point and it's that failure which i think under the e p a standard in twenty to fifty four d one compels the court to find that it was not objective leon reasonable for the state court to reach the decision that it did with respect to the procedure that was followed in this case in sonoma county there is one recent case that was cited to the court and a letter from a petition that i just want to mention because it does it has changed the rules somewhat from from the way we originally cited it and that's boy versus nuland we argued in support of the argument in our brief that petitioner was not entitled to receive the complete more dire transcript  we relied on an earlier panel decision in boyd in which the this court said that's not required under california law at all citing the rule of court six d the third amended version of the second amended the third version of the boy decision which was issued on october twenty sixth of this year the the court held that while the rule six d is not unconstitutional and in fact is completely consistent with the requirement in federal hideous proceedings that a petitioner in this case he and appellant must make a showing of the need for transcripts to get it that in the take place on appeal therefore the petitioner had made a sufficient showing he should the entirety of the more dire transcript the problem with mr thompson's case is he's never made that showing so boy does not support his position it continues to uphold the constitutionality of the rule but it says you have to make a showing and no showing was made here and i think that also came out during the questioning there was never a showing our suggestion that trial counsel had any concerns about what happened during the jury of or dire and with respect to the question that was asked about was what was the jury told what advantage they received page one forty three of the excerpt of record that's this is from the california court of appeal decision the california court of appeal did augment the record to include the opening comments that were made by the trial court at the time and the jurors were told that they were to refer to them speak they would be referred to show us if you would know the names of those jurors which jurors would you have challenged and and why and how those jurors biased against you we can't do that without the equipment that we need for that and there is clearly established united states s that gives the defendant a not only an equal protection but are due process right to a complete record in order to present his first instance his appeal to the state court of appeal and then to the district