because it's a question of law here is we have do we have the do we have the privilege and the benefit of seeing in hearing what the trial court saw in here with respect to the state to determine whether or not wasn't there a big one discussion with the prosecution where the prosecution indicated to the judge why she did what she did yes and that was because the judge prevented unfairly prevented the prosecutor from questioning the juror i think supply an objection by the defendant defense attract what did after that particular objection and the court's ruling did the defense trying to ask any other questions that would relate to the problem or go for the defense did the state nothing preventing the prosecutor from going to it's bad but remember if the judge did not evaluating what the prosecutor said instead the proc the judge came up with his own subjective understanding of people's religious beliefs into this that the only thing i really don't want someone who's super religious on this jury i don't want someone who's involved super good value for the christian church on this because i know that he was not sure where you know what her basis would be and he wanted to ask you these questions and he was shot down maybe he made a mistake and he could have asked another question but didn't he ask her about her religion before he excused her so she i'm not sure what you're getting i agree with what you what you first said that this is exactly what the prosecutor says it won't and what's wrong with that if the prosecutor is doing it because i'm concerned about her deeply rooted or her religious beliefs why is that a batson problem and why isn't have a sufficient explanation because you don't you don't think that the standard is any different then to now partly due to we judge look at what the court court did and determine whether it was clearly  there working at the prosecutor seeing what he up and listening to the listening to the prosecutor's explanation and then making a judgment call based on what the prosecutor said as to whether or not it's pretextual right and not another situation will recur in the cold and i know they can make an argument itself representation well let's talk about the six first jury argument ok how is the fact that the court said you don't have a right to six waive twelve in favor of six in this particular case because these issues are so complicated that they would be need twelve in order for you to have a fair trial but in this case there was no reason for him not to sentence the judge can see the judge asked to there's a difference although we often say shall doesn't he shall and there's never been any assessment of this language the judge has discretion that's right and a defendant he's going to ask for his attorney present himself right he is going to be in front of a jury by himself right don't know him better chance with twelve people the state might have a harder time convincing there's no difference to if you ask first if you if you ask for twelve per you get you get six but you didn't wait twelve you don't have to show prejudice how how could you show prejudice you still got a jury trial trial just without the number of jurors that he requested just like in the cases where you don't have to show prejudice i don't see any difference in that does people versus where does it say that the burden prejudices presumed americans because of the right to work twelve person jury is a fundamental essential feature of the substantial constitutional guarantee are you telling me that the six person jury is a fundamental essential feature guess i'm i'm listening to a conversation with justice burke and silly it's a murder case it's not a simple case you know so what do you want us to sing or do you just want an argument so that you can make one of the happier days and it just cuts in i would have to say exercise of discretion i think what you have to look at is first was the wrong decision may because if he asked for a thousand jurors and the court said you don't have a right you only have the right to twelve as anything else is unconstitutional there would be no discretion but the court made the right call anyway because obviously to give somebody a thousand years is ridiculous so first you have to look at it was the right decision made when there is no exercise need to show prejudice did it in it's well i need you to show prejudice that i think he does have to show the defendant doesn't have to show prejudice oh so if you look at the trial overall the overwhelming what could she made a mistake but i don't think this is the stated is really harm to the fan though the jury was certainly you know there is nothing that would show that there is any prejudice the jury is just an overwhelming case concerned about the race of the person but the religion and you you can see this potential juror she was the wife of the pastor she helped run the church in her free time what did she do she read the bible this is a woman whose life guided by her faith now she can say yes i may be able to just put maybe she can or you know we had a great to go to th e through a series of kind of missteps there was this she wasn't able to you know really vet this jerk but helping the run in church she wasn't actually part of the church your husband wasn't a pastor heard her heard she was a little bit shy but that's see that's the same thing when you talk about where's you look at most cases here you know yes i think it's something here but i still think what's more important is just a fair you know she wanted to speak a little bit more about what particular demanding nation now this person felt about religion this if i bring her back and then she's on a jury there's there is some pass ability of you know where this is jury thinking you know what why did this person do this to me and i think that's a completely legitimate race neutral reason actually that is kind of what the prosecutor and that's basically the reason why the prosecutors just mr because they wanted to delve into this more but they didn't and they could and even then they stick she just said that once i dismissed her or what she was dismissed i felt uncomfortable bringing her back because of the way it would look how she might feel what mind i would expect the prosecutor say nothing more because i would find that if i are judged to be pretextual this is an african american prosecutor who now is in that's just that's if you've never turned in jury that's that's an issue i mean why would you do that well because you're going beyond where we should really be looking at what we should really be looking at why didn't she dismissed her isn't that disregarding the umbrella basket that says when a judge makes this decision it has to parrot the language of either of the parties in its decision so that we know it looked at  wer but he still could sure he didn't want to go pro se knowing that if this turns out to be a real bad problem for him that he