in the state court there was dramatic evidence of racial discrimination even though there were a proportionate representation of chinese american and hispanic americans on the jury for a period of thirty six years prior to mr mendez's indictment not mine hispanic or chinese american was ever acted to serve as a four person of that you're any of the grand jury during that period that the chances of having such a disparity such a racial disparity such an under representation of these major groups was virtually nil one of them said that it was three in eight million the other said that it was point i have that there was a hispanic gentleman thanks seventy three there was a filipino lady that associate of arts degree but i don't see any any indication that there was any no chinese american who was excluded from being a poor person has there wasn't one on the panel because the focus under u s supreme court precedent is not on the jury the grand jury that actually indicted was on or who was not on this particular grand jury no no under caffeinated what you look at is the statistical showing that was made at the hearing and in this case that these difficult showing that was made was that there was intentional discrimination over the last thirty six years and that seem a little removed from the facts so if there is no if there is no chinese american on the panel and the claim that the chinese american was kept off the panel i mean if you have a chinese american on this particular grand jury it seems to me your argument makes some sense with respect to chinese americans if if there's if there are no chinese americans on this grand jury and no one challenges the lawfulness of that fact that there was a prime minister showing of intentional discrimination over this thirty six year period and that intentional discrimination is such an affront to the art system that i discrimination we don't look to this specific case we don't look to the specific specific source of prejudice or harmlessness we look to the pattern of the discrimination and if you're absolutely not under hobby hobby is a due process case and what it said is in order to show a violation of due process you have to show unfairness as to the actual and the way you do that is to show th judge henderson he didn't care how invidious it was how intentional it was we could have shown one in a billion chances and it still wouldn't have been enough because in according to judge henderson and campbell requires the defendant to be this thing race as the as the excluded group and there's two problems with that the first problem is i think that that holding does not follow from campbell campbell among the sitting grand jurors but it also didn't deal with the intentional discrimination that we have in our situation and i would submit that it's not necessary for the defendant to be from the same group if there intentional discrimination what if you had a court where every bailiff and every interpreter and every reporter was intentionally selected from a certain class or certain race and couldn't somebody from another race come in and and so you don't even have to reach the first question that we've been talking about about whether or not intentional discrimination against a ministerial person violates the constitution because in this case the person was not ministerial and there were three major a this is a critical point and i only have a minute and a half left here but i i have to make this really take the time to make this point the attorney general is california law in your view for person what he's using he's using a statistical history and it's empty show discrimination in his case and the significance of that or another significant point that comes off of that is the fact that individual judges several individual judges acting independently chose these jurors and judge for county who chose the grand jury foreperson in this case is chosen no more than three with one exception all the judges have chosen and no more than three again very poor person and also those selections art are not contiguous these are not judges acting three years in a row and making several selections for these were several years apart so we have to assume that all of these presiding judge is individually discriminated specifically and only against chinese hispanic and filipino not japanese not blacks not gender these three groups all of them the selections are made by individual judges acting individually relegating each year the testimony of the grand jury advisor and the superior court executive officer make clear that race wasn't a factor it wasn't the usual in vegas terms like moral law pride appropriate punctuality people skills leadership but these are things that have to be viewed in person at some point it's like the resume before the job the questionnaire submitted by somebody may look good on paper but when you see them you hear them articulate you see how whether they show up on time these things can be determined by the questionnaire alone the judge has to see these quite a bit of experience with paperwork and was very outgoing  you have an affirmative the grand jury and the foreman or person decided not to sign i mean if it's truly ministerial then one would think he would have some remedies but it doesn't appear that there any remedies for this and i don't know and this is one of the difficulties with this we're looking at a fairly obscure statutes that there there isn't a lot of california case law on i did the same survey when i was trying to compare the obligations of the grand jury for a person in the federal system there isn't a lot of case law i think it comes down to a lot of experience with with the trial judges and what happens in practice and that may not be documented in co innocent and then somehow gets excused from the jury and there's a there's a conviction now from you know grand jury for first and everybody who thinks that we should indicted excuse for bias that would seem to be a