again representing mr james felton from our perspective your honor as indicated in the briefing there was constitutional error not to ask the jurors during voir dire the racial prejudice questions including the implicit racial bias questions requested by mr felton implicit racial bias your honor is a real saying and we need to figure out how to address it because it's a real obstacle to fair trial and here in this context to having an impartial and unbiased jury our position your honor says that where you have a black defendant charged with a violent crime and the defendant requests why dear an implicit racial bias the constitution requires it and should require it  i think we should start with the proposition that there is no dispute that implicit racial bias right it's a black man and violence exists in the legal system to give a training materials in the literature seem to  overwhelmingly support that and it's a powerful force implicit racial bias that impacts decision making and what should be done about it here what we are asking and basing our people on is that including jury instructions and jury orientation but one critical aspect of supplying a jury that is fair and impartial and is able to guard against the implicit racial biases that to repeat back to your honor in terms of when you have the rights of a black defendant i'm trial the questions of whether it might be better to avoid the issue fall somewhat hollow on the shoulders of black defendant to having gauged the pluses and minuses makes the request to go and address the issue and i think whether in supreme court president or from this  cetera the notion that if the defendant to gets to choose whether to run the risk that you just identified it should lie with the defendant and if the defendant requested it that is the trigger for where asserting should size how best to do that is primarily left to the broad discretion of the district court and here as you know the district court it wasn't if there was no questions about race the district court gave multiple warnings to the potential jurors about and bias cannot enter into their deliberations and then twice once in a very open ended fashion ask them whether they could follow that instruction so you want to the answer's yes your honor and let me address it on the implicit racial bias aspect st i mean we do have issues with how the judge asked the expressed racial bias question in this case which i think are important to flag but of us and so the supreme court rules in this course prior precedent in terms of trying to winnow through who has expressed prejudices and in this case one that you know is racially charged enough that we do need a constitutional  are because we don't fit within the fifty year old jurisprudence that try to navigate express racial prejudice as opposed to implicit racial bias that we're talking about and you know candidly obviously the best that we can realistically hope for from the court is that you know we would if we could but maybe we can't and that may be a platform to go ahead and continue to address that question that plane or the government has a clean to do that and being an appellant my review of the supreme court decisions from ham ford and from this court's decision says that it is enough to preserve the error if you go ahead and submit the request in your proposed law year and the judge declines to do that i don't know what would happen if you were purely silent and the judge forgot that you had raised those issues you know that may be one thing but here clearly that's not what happened the judge was aware of the request by the defendant made a decision that no he was going to do it in his reason fashion and all told purpose a plainer as if you have something that never made it to the attention of the district court we're going to review and i'm playing error here clearly it was an issue raised to the district court  decided it and the notion that you need to renew your objection afterwards and say no really we wish you would do it candidly this issue was raised to the district or the district or decided it and there's no requirement of renewing the objection  which which case stands for the proposition that if you submit fifty questions for five year and the judge goes through them and picks on the not others or takes a combination of questions from both sides and comes up with a script that you don't have to object to what the then you need to ask again whether they could do it i could see obviously a ruling if you submit fifty somehow things will get lost in the shuffle but here what would distinguish it from the hypothetical you put forward your hono the defendant's position against it by saying i'm not going to do that and the notion of renewed objection is one that is not in the jurisprudence and i don't have my time sorry i did want to and having those questions asked in a compound format where they don't ask do you have a prejudice they asked if you do have a prejudice could you overcome it here what the judge into doing is kind of the worst way of addressing it you know he did address it but he starts with an instruction that al shall not and then says you know if by the way you happen to have could you overcome it and you know from our perspective in terms of really trying to figure out the very difficult question error in conducting his war dear which as your honor noted included numerous explicit statements about the need for jurors to serve without prejudice racial or otherwise and included in a specific admonition and a question directed at bias based on race and other characteristics here felton claims that judge kali's failure specifically to discuss unconscious or implicit racial bias amounted to structural constitutional error mandating reversal and his wrong based on binding supreme court  precedent under the supreme court's holdings absent any racially sensitive issues in a case or any suggestion that the defendants race is intertwined with the testimony or evidence the constitution does not in fact require any questioning about race at all much less a searching  about implicit racial bias as felt in claims was required here the supreme court has made clear that any questioning about by even explicit overt bias is required quote only when there are more substantial indications of the likelihood of racial or ethnic prejudice affecting the jurors in a particular case here felton points to no way in which race is ground up in the facts or evidence of the case or any other indications that racial prejudice may have affected the jurors in their consideration of this case and in fact there were no racial components to the testimony or evidence in this matter felt instead attacked essentially the very premise of the supreme court's holding in rizal as what has that quote there is no constitutional presumption of juror bias for or against members of any particular racial or ethnic or indeed his opening brief acknowledges and it was a galaxy again here an argument that this is a novel position and that in order to prevail felt would have to quote  he's asking this court to quote reconsider prior supreme court ruling he cites no authority for the proposition that the court can do so out government respect placemats that it cannot unless the court has any additional questions the government