have to defer to that you know why why not well because first of all when he made the comparative analysis that was based on the jurors that were seated and there would be jurors who were challenged and that jury could hear why is there so trial and one of the assistants strikes a black person from a jury the defense puts say in affidavits from people that used to work in that office saying this was the training that officers were trained strike all black people the judge says based on what's been going on in the office generally and the training these assistance have i think that the strike was racially motivated are you saying he could not do that he has to just focus on  having denied their many efforts to be severed but the court still held against each of the four strikes that the others made and i think that the court was was wrong in doing that comments that it made that it had an obligation to preserve any cross section of the community and that is not what the supreme court has said well i'm ok with that as a grown i think that the court has said that it can certainly can't look at the fact that there are already seven african americans on the jury and say oh no no african americans because there are already a majority but say with the facts that  excused you're giving we are getting rid of this white is an excuse that would apply equally well to some non whites that you left on and i don't believe you well that's what that's what the judge said the court was not saying that with respect to the stripes that really matter in the second the second juror so there's really just one strike that matters the second alternate that wound up on the jury that's right that's the one we're talking about and that's what he said about her that in fact w my counsel's my client's trial counsel who tried to make that strike against that young woman first and by the way there is no other member of the new year with a long term close personal association with a member of law enforcement she was comparable to no one and each three of the four defense counsels trying to destroy her i thought the record showed that she had a friend who was a jail guard but so did some of the nonwhite that's that's not true you're not a she had a close personal relationship with a deputy sheriff and it is true that some of the non whites also knew some law enforcement but it was not the steam kind of long term personal relationship that she had also she was afraid of the defend with the defense counsel having to confer about who they would strike and they decided not to do that anymore and the understanding was that each of them was proceeding separately so i don't understand how the judge had the right the burden is on the party opposing the strikes and the court took the process over and the comparative analysis the court did was not apply to this case to this jury selection it was the prior  or strike so the fight about who to strike if we've been allowed to separate strikes as we sometimes were in civil cases and sometimes will confer then it seems to me to be perfectly appropriate to hold what the other lawyer stated as to be part of a pattern so you're saying that when those four counsel made their impassioned speeches to the judge about how they were telling the truth that they were to s it's sort of rubs me the wrong way that the prosecutor didn't have to make any sort of effort to you seems to me you have your priorities and then you have the judge and once the judge goes over and steps down one of the parties then you don't have a very good   that's right ok well i guess i haven't convinced you i think the judge used an improper standard because he was focusing on a cross section of the community which is not what babson requires i think the judge did the wrong thing against the rules when he took over the process from solicitor the wheeler motions from the prosecutor i think the judge was not impartial he could no longer make a fair and good face determination whether they whether the reasons were admission of one party comes in against another and the other doesn't get to cross examine here both the jailhouse informant and night testified subject easy to make you say one thing the prosecution's other witness the jailhouse informant shows another one of you that at least must be lying you may both be lying you're both criminals why should the jury believe either idea beyond a reasonable doubt i don't understand why they didn't confrontation of a witness who has allegedly made it out of court statement implicating the defendant defendant was possible only if he affirmed the statement as yes and you know cross examination asked to be meaningful for it to have for confrontation to their privilege or refused to answer they testified and were fully subjected to cross yeah right but night night as that he had made the statement so how can you be crossed about the statement that he says you're saying that saying i never said to address the batson issue first i have to agree with the trial court because i've been doing criminal appeals for about thirty years that this is the most blatant example of batson violations i've ever seen the jets are the most blatant example of balance of violations you'd ever seen after being on the bench for fifteen years at the first trial eleven out of fifteen crimpers by the defense were exercised exercised against asians or asian americans as the judge said you don't want caucasians and they want asians on this jury and given those numbers the judge did exactly what was prudent and legally proper he did not want to have another mistrial these defense attorneys obviously confer problem with people living with you in this journalism we're here because people and we are prosecution oriented that's not this the absolute nonsense these were just blatantly nonsensical and clearly racially motivated challenges the judge did what was right  didn't want to reward the improprieties of the defense with the second best trial and have to start so lacking a jury the third time with regard to prospective juror alter number two who ultimately sat on the jury the parents gave their reasons and the judge didn't buy them because there were other african american jurors who shared the same characteristics there were a couple of african american jurors who had a close association with people in law enforcement they were left on the jury there were three african american who were left on the jury would convict him some crimes absolutely correct in denying the peremptory challenge is better off in the juror number two and as far as the claim that the judge was taken over the proceedings and was not giving the defense any more preach challenges the fact is that after the prime preach challenge to prospective alternate juror number two was denied the prosecut made to wheel of that's and functions when the defense exercised printer challenges against two additional perspective alternatives and the judge denied those any of those things that jailhouse informant ramirez and the three defendants didn't participate in the murders i did it all by myself there's nothing they could not have elicited any more beneficial testimony if they had  on appeal in this appeal i numerator fourteen ground right and i think there are one or two others that were raised for the first time in the traverse no i'm not making a claim the failure to exhaust in the traverse opposing counsel said i really did raise these claims in the district court because i appended my position for review that was filed in the california supreme court and those grounds were raised in there but there's nothing in the first take this petition and he does petition filed district court saying i'm incorporating by reference whatever claims i have in the petition for review is attached apparently as an exhibit of them by some sort of within the district court announced some of the why because they're also raised by a culbertson and they were probably raised by culver city as i pointed out in a footnote in our colors briefly responded on the merits to those claims the prosecutor was striking a lot of hispanics the judge said i'm not talking to you he was so angry at her that even though he went ahead and allowed wheeler motions us to do other defense counsel objections after alternate number two was denied she tried to strike yet another thing here and the court did not allow it by my  client's trial counsel was the only black person in the room except for the people on the jury she said i don't remember that being developed in the political but she was the only black person that your client was