and then appointed counsel if the court finds that the claims marriage counsel and then set a hearing of which point appointed counsel is supposed to tell the defendant present his ineffective assistance claim that did not happen not even a single than your member can be struck based off of grace the reasons that the state gave was strikingly scrawled both applied to a jury of white jury members who were allowed to serve in the first instance negative experience or had been treated unfairly by the police these the fact that she had a neutral view of police was something that was expressed by miss all the simpler later she is allowed to serve was allowed to serve as an alternate therefore similarly situated jury members don't have to be identical in all aspects and the combination of traits in one person doesn't necessarily be feet the inference of that the state was using protection reasons and in this case not at that point the only person who could not express the positive opinion of law of the general opinion of law enforcement and also she claimed to know someone who was not treated fairly in macomb county case the other two jurors which the ms and all alderson she had believed that a close friend or family member had been treated fairly so this is actually similar to the williams case which is binding in which case there there were two deference and so therefore i believe the defense never raised below specifically the argument that the prosecutor's reason was protection will and it's pursuing that claim specific claim  tender gets to decide who the public the actual system public defender would be not the trial court the trial court could under critical procedure order a new public defender for example  problem which was remedied with the politician of this that is that in every case the trial court is not obligated to ensure that the defendant receives a new public defender upon defendant making identified that defendant the defendant's last name simply and also identified him in particular from photo lineup that's enough to make sure that the the initial statements defendant made to the police obtained by investigator for the prosecution outside the presence of his counsel however if the defense attorney knows that those initial statements are coming in and then later statements to let those statements come in and not be subject to a pretrial suppression notion so therefore also that it's a done this record fenix not just burden of showing his counsel was incompetent or acted unreasonably with respect to those later state sad was prejudiced simply from those later statements alone he would not if there's a reasonable probability he wouldn't quit given that if there was probable cause and that the post arrest agents were coming in that he still would have been the second the motion to suppress an effective assistance of counsel that to the photograph from the first witness is completely there's no way to identify anyone from back photograph the court but the second witness to say that his arrest but would lack of probable cause or should a counsel should have challenged those in with those gone and the second statement is gone because those second statement work they did contain some exculpatory information but mostly they gave more detail of the crime and therefore counsel should have struck that event with the first statements coming in because more it was more against his client more evidence against this client but again with the second witness's identification was not