and this afternoon i just want to concentrate on two of those unless a court house questions on the other three the two i want to concentrate on of course is st the babson issue and then the nd is the hearsay issue and both of those are identified as issues number one and two in our briefs starting with the batson issue mr adams went to trial ideas african american but for the purposes of this analysis it doesn't matter what race mr adams is there was one african american juror of the twenty nine potential jurors selected  when mr swift described what the basis of the challenge was he indicated that the jury was african american so he made the the st elements the reasons really have no merit and is that experience of history a proxy in the court this type of thing which was the striking of african american jurors happens all the time the trial court so determined that the four reasons given by the government were race neutral and for purposes of this appeal we don't have an issue with that ruling except for other circuit court the nd circuit has found that that is a pretextual reason and one that should not be allowed in regard to the other thirty three reasons the fact that there is no harm there is no deliberation that we can see on the record that was done by the courts or the trial court it's reciting the the fact that it believed that the reasons were not race neutral on the court at the time of its decision had a couple things that us were of the potential jurors determined that several of the potential jurors had criminal histories the only potential juror that was struck that had a criminal history that the black jerk potential juror so we think that the court had to give some deliberation or to give some reasons other than the conclus so when the court would have considered and not only did the court house the results of the government's investigation into the potential jurors but the court also has the full  y questionnaires that counsel relied on when they were making their stripes and the jury questionnaires would have shown that the government's circuit that's on page six of my reply brief so we have no record as to whether or not the district court made this comparative analysis that it was required to do so do any of the compar jurors have either all for three of the four issues that were raised with respect to the african american you're the african american juror had four things that were identified the other white jurors had six for example a drug drunk driving conviction or was unemployed there is no evidence that they had each of those four things together that in response to that and of course that's something that the government argues in response to that i would submit that you know i don't i don't wan yeah exactly ira but i hope i hope my point is getting across in that it doesn't matter if there were ten pretextual reasons it still ends up in the same result but what basis can we conclude that the other three even if we accept your argument with respect to the lie on what basis can we conclude that the other three are pretextual well the trial court didn't flowers versus mississippi in that case the supreme court weighed what the prosecutor said was a legitimate reason and and determined what did the prosecutor use that same legitimate reason claim legitimate reason and in other striking at other jurors and flowers the government was striking or that the state was striking a black jurors for reasons that it didn't strike white jurors and that's exactly what we have in this case where the government states that it struck because if a recent criminal conviction whereas it didn't strike the so we are argument is your honour's that that rd factor of that that's an analysis the rd factor that requires a trial judge to make a determination on the record was there just from a tory intent or was there do i take what the the prosecutor is saying that that decision wasn't wasn't made the only thing that and i appreciate the court reciting that that one sentence from the district court's analysis but we don't believe that that is sufficient and we think that the district court fail to do to conduct a meaningful analysis of that  factor going on to that here's a shoe that i wanted to briefly address and i don't want to take away the importance of the other of the other issues that i raise i think there are some interesting issues in there but the nd factor is regarding the hearsay objection and the lack of foundation objection so in this case the government argued that although mr rossi adams was not directly involved in the robbery he didn't go into the house he recruited another person to do so they the government used this prior incidents where mr adams has a had a very large social media following or possibly a one million and a half hours and the government claimed that because he was not able to persuade one of the people that owned this domain name that the government claims that he wanted he sent out a message on a social media account telling his followers to call or send images to this person and that person's causing that person's phone to do as a person described crash that person described he claims he knew that the defendant was responsible for it because other people told him that the front was responsible for it or the defense objections the government witness was allowed to testify to that even though when the government conduct an analysis of the phone there was no evidence of the of the whatever they were arguing so that was an important part of the case because the government argued that that that was the only other piece of the stuff they had that showed the defendants exhorted you havior which led to this incident in july of two thousand and eighteen regards to the breaking the court and mr sheets as well check from the histories office here in the northern district of iowa mr sheets indicated there are a number of issues in the briefing here the briefs are quite thick and i was planning as well to focus on the pats issue and be evidentiary issue of course if the court has any questions about the other issues in that case i'd be happy to answer those as well i was also one of the lawyers at the trial so if there are any questions about the prior proceedings i'd be happy to reasons and frankly have any evidence other than his own professional statement and the court quickly dispatched those with respect to the standard of review i don't want to get too bogged down in the standard of review but i do think it goes to the merits here there's in the briefing and then again here today there's much discussion of the truth of these compare it to are jurors and the jury questionnaires and the reason the court didn't talk about the jury questionnaires of course is that the trial i think it talked about very well this sort of practice of holding back on the jury questionnaires and here we had a new counsel come in and and case in the government's view we end up in the same place and it's awkward to say clear your honor because there's no finding on those comparison for this court to review for clear if we're getting into the weeds on the compare a tor jurors in the jury questionnaires cost associated with the witnesses at the grand jury and in particular with the government you on that i find it interesting because the grand jury is somewhere between investigation and prosecution and the prosecution we have  presented to a grand jury for a return of a true bill but in our district we have a stickler discovery order and i was required to turn over prosecution also with the highland case i thank you for bringing that up judge it that case in that case the government st tax one hundred thousand dollars like thirty years ago one hundred thousand dollars in investigative costs now we saw it for five thousand dollars worth of actual cost listed in the statute it seems pretty clear to me that oh it's not entirely clear from the opinion that highland was dealing with the entire cost of the government's investigation now if we want to talk about the entire cost of the government's investigation this case it was extensive honor again i think it is general language i would just suggest that in that case i believe the word investigation was used to cover the investigation in the macro sense of the police officers and prosecutors salary and all that sort of thing but we here we are only you see in the  statutory listed one thank you with respect to the evidentiary issue your hours in the in the time i have remaining i i one objection and i met age twenty three of my brief where he where mr keller answer based you know that there was a video on on state stamp social media that had my number linked to it encouraging people to contact me and as we emphasize that's how defendants on council it seems interpret that statement because on cross examination  he had in his question said when you talk about seeing the video but regardless as we emphasize this is this piece of evidence while mr sheets is correct in his brief that we did mention this to the grand jury in my closing i went back and counted it was one line in and you know about a fifteen page closing and the or incriminating evidence that mr miller gave the jury was that and this isn't controvert is that the defendant had given sent these gun to mr miller because he was using the state's maps brand so to speak and you know in this case we had the defendant's palm print on the note that was found at the scene he's calling go daddy d the day after the robbery asking where's my domain at and it's  he's using the specific account number that's on the note it's considered coconspirator testified against and this miller's testimony while relevant was by no means the crux of the case it was you know two years before the home invasion unless the court has any other questions i would intend to rest thank you three quick points st you haven't said the government says really wasn't that important at trial they fought and fought and fought and fought to get in and now they're tying us today that it really wasn't that big of a deal i don't think it has much credibility when they say that today nd there was a question regarding clear air plane air i mean there was clearly that's an hearing that was held in this case so clear air prevails regarding the lack of findings by the district court as mr beveridge said there was no real findings regarding  these factors the government still hasn't told us why a black potential juror was struck because of a conviction but the the white people were deemed to be fair that had convictions the government still hasn't told us why living with one's parents is makes a person unfair the government still hasn't told us either at the district court level or here in the breeze or an oral argument why a white person who doesn't have a job can be fair but a black person doesn't have a job can't be fair and must be struck we haven't heard anything like that rd really briefly we go on the grand jury the costs of prosecution vs the cost of the investigation we cite a case law that from the supreme court that clearly finds that the grand jury's job is investigative and i think that's a clear distinction between the cost of prosecution