discrimination in the selection of the grand jury foreperson was unreasonable and there are three factors which lead to that conclusion the first is that that the state court based its decision y selecting judge for each selection mr coleman testified that he would go into chambers on occasion when he was invited he stated quote my involvement if didn't testify to it seems to me that he testified to a pretty remarkable overview of the process the only other alternative was to pull in all the judges and it seems to me that because the judges primarily were involved in only one of these decisions your  position seems to demand that all of the judges the ones that are living at least get some aren't any we've ever been involved in this have to be pulled an individual is usually what you're saying is nobody but the judges themselves who would come in and  so the way i read the testimony of the john that you're complaining about is that he had a much better picture of what was going on than anybody else what i'm on this i'm sure he wasn't a judge but he was there for a long period of time and intimately involved i'm not arguing that the judges have to get their testimony was absolutely necessary but i think that the testimony of the people that i think who would be if you don't need to judge is a man who nobody would be with me with  did his discussions with the judges weren't that were not protracted that the judge may have asked for a recommendation but it's if he gave one it wasn't binding that it was the judge's call in that he couldn't read the judge more intensive involvement with the judges what do you mean by that i mean that's very where they had this where they had actually discussed the criteria that was being used for selecting the four person that they seem to be able to tell us what the criteria are in that but they never having trouble with your proposition this testimony of these two people necessarily can never create a foundation i'm not saying that it can never but when it is when it when it does not show  close association with the judge as far as what the what the judge was actually thinking then i think there's a void and the judges could have filled that and there was also there was also the problem  was strong evidence that there had been prior discriminatory intent you know it could have been that there was prior a lack of affirmative action well hillary the they want to the da to bring in evidence other evidence and probably more importantly is did the four person decide whether a person should be a grand juror should be dismissed because they're not may please the court my name is michael reilly on the devotee attorney general for the state of california and i'm representing ward kerry in this case i'd like to start out by saying that then i don't know what that means i saw a fifty thirty eight point five one for nine months go ahead i get well i guess that's of it's all relative but in the crowded san francisco hall of justice this was an extensive hearing judge louis heard these witnesses heard argument heard statistician's at the conclusion of the evidence judge louis found that petitioner have established a prime attach a case that there was racial discrimination in the selection of the san francisco grand jury over a long period of time but he also found that the state had successfully rebut or that presumption with evidence that the selection criteria was race neutral and that was affirmed by the california court of a of a grand jury to perform the job as form and although they the criteria sufficient to rebut the case of this nature is not specifically  defined but is pretty clear in common sense and in the case i think most clearly connected with ours factually with the us versus pres fernandez and there the eleventh circuit found that the traits are the of the attributes of leadership skills administrative skills in occupation were permissibly race neutral and that i would say advisor was a part of the process for four years what exactly does that mean that the mr tammany oberstein grand jury process as an assistant executive officer of the supreme court is there anywhere in specifications duties that was in connection with the grand juries up to something generally falling under his umbrella i think at that time or during the relevant time period of fell under his umbrella he was involved in to some extent in the compiling of the the source list that is the on the random list of d m v and voter registration but it appeared from his tested only that he assisted the presiding judge of the assigned grand jury judge  twenty years in the selection process i guess really this boils down to one of the prime official cases discrimination was overcome by the evidence that was abused to the evidence room here yesterday and as i read cast the native it doesn't approve or disapprove of any kind of evidence it simply says that explicitly in this case none was produced and then that doesn't say that you have to have this kind or you can't have that kind or you must have all the judges come to the decision makers so often when you see the cast in any case i  right here we produced quite a bit and i would agree that the criteria has never been specifically defined as to what evidence is sufficient to rebut a pile of cash a case but under alexander versus louisiana we know that it would be insufficient just to affirm good faith and to deny discrimination we know that the state must demonstrate because you ask you mistrust the decision makers protestation well exactly exactly and that's a case then the burden falls tyrolean on the other side that's correct so they don't have to call the judges they don't they didn't have to in the end they didn't but tammany and coleman were inherently credible because they were the closest thing to a constant in the process and their testimony tended tended to corroborate one another the they didn't have to defend their own conduct because they didn't make the selection they did they specifically despite the fact that there were many many judges and some of the there were variables i'm sure in the different procedures and methods of judges used but they testified that race was never a factor they testified that the judges were looking for people with again administrative skills argument they did not testify that this was just my criteria they testified this was the judge's criteria and to the extent that the petitioner disputes that point their position is not supported by the record hallman testified specifically that the judges frequently discussed the kind of person they were looking for the judges had an occupation printout for each granger on their desk some of these grand jury foreman were picked because of their occupation in one thousand nine hundred three steel officers that means foreman and secretary were picked because their skills tended to balance and compliment one another testified that some of the judges commented that grand jurors who did not show up on time would not make good officers the judges also had from the da had a a criminal history on each  grand juror so they could do that and both tammy home and said look the judge not always but frequently solicited our input we believe we assume that that is why they wanted it because we would look at the grand jurors we would see them testify and or deer in the would see how they comport themselves with one another how they socially interacted and we would make our recommendations based on that sometimes a judge would follow them sometimes not but they both testified that race was never a factor in the just record you know the judge grier noted also the people versus brown case the related case to this one and noted that the fact that the judges usually involved coleman in the process the very fact that they were in the process means that if any judge harbored any bias in any racial bias it was less likely that it would go unchallenged because those two people who were there