undermined each of the prosecutor's reasons for the strike the prosecutor came up with a new reason one that wasn't supported by her contemporaneous notes despite these red flags the district court found that there was no batson violation it committed several legal errors though i will start with what the district court called its expanded record analysis which is where the court looked at both the prosecutor's original contemporaneous reasons along with the prosecutor's new reason so i thought time of the bags an objection the prosecutor stated she structure fernandez for two reasons st because she was an engineer and in her view engineers tend to overthink matters and nd because thought point the district court was required to determine whether the prosecutor's new reason was properly reconstructed meaning whether circumstantial evidence supported that the prosecutor's new reason was actually a real reason or simply post a post since it only takes one good reason to to find the bats in violation why does this one even matter i actually would disagree that it takes one good reason to find one good reason to service and it and there does have some contemporaneous notes that noted whether they were prior jury service of the other members of the of the jury pool so why isn't the real question the question about about the engineer  the sympathetic and as if those were pretextual then we should we should just send it back well for two reasons st i think that that the contemporaneous notes show that the prosecutor didn't write down anything about juror fernandez then then the fact that she's got maybe one good reason doesn't say that for the prosecution but that would be your contention right i would agree with that but then it's been a it's largely irrelevant the real question is whether the st two reasons the ones that she that she st offered i mean we're in a little bit of an awkward situation because we did send this back and there was a lot of debate as to whether as to whether the judge should consider it or not consider it and he cut this one every which way you could he found that you didn't have a case of step one but he went on to step two in step three out of an abundance of caution and step three said i'm going to do it two different ways so he looks like he's tried to cover the whole of the bases so i would agree that just burns gave us a good faith effort but i still think that there are legal and so with respect even if we can find you engineering like professions that just records and came up with a reason why the prosecutor didn't strike those other people so he said well the government only get six per entries and so i can kind of understand why they're not going to strike all of the engineers but  like and that's a little bit of a trick because there really was only one other engineer who did make a song and the prosecutor explained that she just spaced it she missed that he was an engineer and the others really aren't engineers one working as an administrative assistant to an engineering firm is not an engineer folks in the high tech industry people who work on computers may do things the way they work with engineers but there's a difference between being an engineer and working in a high tech industry well all who do require professional qualifications in order to call themselves and an electrical engineer computer programmer can be just about anybody well even if we set aside those software engineers around or there was pure pointer to the some i retired electrical engineer  but the prosecutor explained she she just space she just misstepped correct your honor but if engineering was such an important criterion for the prosecutor one would expect that she would have written it down on her notes when she heard that your pointer said that and so i think her explanation is undermined by her contemporaneous notes and by her testimony that engineering was essentially a critical reason why jurors were not supposed to serve on this jury so the other the other and then i think the other problem with the district court's analysis is that the prosecutor gave a nd contemporaneous reason which was that juror fernandez was going to be sympathetic to immigrants and so judge brinn specifically asked her fernandez if he had any strong views on the immigration laws and he said no just the law is what it is that's what you are one hundred and four that was no different than what two other jurors said who the government didn't strike so juror graphic e r twenty three said when asked about his views on the immigration laws he said no i'm not real strong on that no and then your camp now said he had no strong feelings about the immigration laws but the district court never conducted a comparative juror analysis with respect to that nd reason is simply focused exclusively on the engineer based rationale and never did a meaningful evaluation of the prosecutor nd reason and encourage versus mcdowell havey is case this court found that there was error when the just a court stopped evaluating only at only the st reason the prosecutor gave because the  race independent reason the question is whether there's race is a substantial motivating factors so a district court can't simply stop the analysis after looking at just one of the prosecutors multiple reasons if there are no further question that like to reserve the remainder of my time good morning may please the court caroline hahn on behalf of the united states your honors i did not strike mr fernandez as a juror because of latino or for any other discriminatory purpose i did so because of the nature of his employment and also because of his spouse's recent interaction with the immigration system because he had naturalized as a u s citizen in the year proceeding the trial and as the record reflects and as we would urge t to note the district court properly if i applied the batson framework why is it that you didn't come up with the the reason that he lacked jury experience the st time around your honor and i have to take issue with your term come up i guess i would say that why you did you didn't write it down right that is correct and i did not write it down and you didn't cite it at the for the st time and then it was only upon re ma brief i looked back through my notes and other concerns that i had that daily in their service to my guidelines is in hindsight now you're looking at you're looking at things to find other reasons that you could have come up with at the time  and and i don't i mean i think the supreme court has said that you know coming up with reasons that you didn't say the st time around tends to make the st reasons look perhaps prete stand comfortably on the original reason cited which are that he was an engineer and he had this relative who had become a naturalized u s citizen and as a result we had concerns that he would have sympathy for him or that he stated that he didn't have any particular had gone on and on about the discriminatory application of the immigration system it was something particularly on that day she cited that there was a th circuit argument that day it was a quite it a time in february of two thousand and seventeen right after the election and at that time i believe it was the travel ban case that was argued that she cited earlier and so in light of that context i was concerned that this juror because of his close contact with his partner who was an immigrant legal would have any sympathy at all for all immigrants legal or someone like that the appellant he was in the united states awfully did not commit clear error as a explained are two reasons were that he was an engine here and that he had his partner with illegal immigrant status or u s citizen you're not generally as a explained i had some concerns about engineers on juries certainly that is not a bar in every single case in this case i did have some concern because of the nature of a case that is relatively straightforward but one of the defenses or wh we anticipated being a defense because of the reciprocal discovery that we had received was that the issue would be as to on the entry issue because where the defendant entered in this case is a place where there is no actual border wall fence at all there is essentially only some chicken wire that divides the united states and mexico and like of that i had some concerns that your finances and like of his position and in light of the the way the way engineers think they want things to fit claimed that he did not knowingly enter the united states right that he sort of wandered in that it was possible for him to wander in from mexico right and because there was essentially nothing that divided that made it clear that between the united states and mexico that in fact he was in the united states it turns out not to be true there was and there is he made a significant entry from that chicken wire it was the kind of thing where i thought that someone who's an engineer who likes things to fit together and for that are not to be controversy might particular case the defense was that he did not knowingly enter the united states great and so and he essentially claimed that and there were a number he had a witness that he put on who essentially put on all these photographs of sentry so that there's no sign that says  in the united states versus mexico right all there was was this chicken wire and so it was possible for the defendants to accidently once or wander into the united states we had other evidence to rebut that obviously but i know it's concerns that because engineers like things to fit together and for them to be straightforward and they like to overthink things that that might be something that mr fernandez as an engineer and mr mayor and as an engineer might get caught up on that is the reason that i one of the with number thirty five and went to number one and so i think over there that had place some impact is to take even notes i took much more rigorous in those earlier on as and as time went on i took less nodes  argued about the comparative analysis and we would argue that the comparative analysis that the district court did was appropriate for that a true comparative analysis would have been against someone who was an engineer and who also had a relative who who had some experience with the immigration system as intern and herrera rivera in which this court found that that there were no people that had criminal history as  into account but as to the issue as to whether or not the district court did actually evaluate the immigration issue they just report did in fact do so and did so on several of these different occasions they also argue that he felt that the district court also rejected the foreign policy challenge we believe it is an inappropriate given that both parties agreed to the four calls challenge and they were not initiated by the united states and for those reasons are unusual circumstances such that the court cannot take any direction that this court may have and and analyze and make the proper analysis but again we have a different different judge certainly could you could run a comparative analysis if we thought that that was in no ability to judge the credibility and we would urge the court that because there is a full record because the judge by be explained that the court did its analyses in various different way there is a phone work record the court can take it in over approach and can find that the engineering and the relationship to the spouse were to race neutral reasons and that i had no discriminatory purpose in striking mr fernandes all right thank you counsel so i want to correct one thing that government council mentioned which is that argument judge burns had invented a reason why the government was not striking the other engineer she said that was only at the time of the original objection find a jury that meets all three criteria that the government has suggested that your fernandez had but the supreme court in miller allen footnote six specifically said that jurors are the product of a set of cookie cutters and so it's if that were the remailer and to a different judge we would continue to maintain that that is the remedy that's appropriate here i understand that a new judge hasn't seen the board here but judge burns himself on the record said that he didn't remember what happened because the remained hearing by the time of  hearing the trial had occurred eighteen months earlier but what a new district court judge could do that this court couldn't do you would be to conduct a credibility determination so they could take new testimony from the prosecutor they could do a new comparative juror analysis  so our position is that there are three other engineers the government didn't strike but there were two other people who answered similarly the question about immigration laws and then seven of the twelve jurors who actually served on the patent jury all have prior jury service so each one of the