given the fact that there are plausible reasons apparent from the face of the record for striking the two black veneer men whom the prosecutor struck and there w plausible reasons apparent and the record for not having stricken the comparable jurors that you set forth how is it debatable i think it's debatable because all the people that i mentioned were comparable that is anyone who had any family members associated with or involved in any crime or law enforcement those people were white and the two black people that he struck the two black women that he  also had family or family members who were previously involved in law enforcement or had been arrested or had some kind of a moment but yet they were struck and the white people were not struck from the five there's no there's no question that it's not a matter of a retroactive application in a in a in a case like this because that's and was the law way before his trial and i don't think showing the judge just said there's no showing of discrimination the trial attorney was not very clear as to who was not struck by the prosecutor who was not challenged by the prosecutor but it's clear from the record even though she may not have been very clear articulated in there to get into the trial court why she thought there was discrimination other than that the defendant was black and the two women that were struck were black and the three people who have similar black backgrounds who were white were not struck in terms of the argument with respect to the instructional error and i am cognizant of the fact that the government provided a no per curiam decision by the supreme court that says really says we should leave the states to interpret their their own law and i think that that is that that is well taken except for that the unreasonable application of federal constitutional law and that and that is because it was clear about was it was ambiguous that the manner in which the trial judge and structed the jury was very ambiguous because mr mac's defense was that he didn't take the car he just simply drove the car and his defense was that he drove the car and that the trial court ended up instructing you know the two jurors that were there were three black church struck two by the prosecution one by the defense the two jurors that were struck both of them had family members who were being prosecutor or had been prosecuted by the d a for crimes which may be constitutional wear on the burden of proof because the california wheeler burden was followed rather than batchelor is all right well i don't think that really happened in this case i mean first of all we have to go to the question of whether johnson complicated legal issue when you had the california supreme court in box saying that their standard complied and then we had later the citizens from this court saying that yeah the substantial likelihood standard was the same and then only until j meanwhile do you have anything else to add on this case or no i mean it could be the cause versus right sets down a standard which makes it an approach this case unapproachable from the factual determination point of view in other words the track court in the court of appeal both the term and that factually speaking the prosecutor had ample reason to dismiss mysteries to jurors and so under twenty to fifty four d there's just no room for this court to do the factual determinations but once again the