i would begin with the first issue of the eight issues that were certified here this is a very complex case and there are in additional six uncertified issues but the first issue is you number one considered a wheeler motion and williams attorney made a motion for mistrial on the basis that there were purposeful discrimination the j required the prosecutor to give racially neutral reasons which of course is the second that since stan and the prosecutor did this and the judge said ok i'm issue was raised in the california supreme court in the supreme court with jack that the batsmen claim but they did so on a strong likelihood basis and as this court knows  the record for the state court judgment to be a hell it didn't really reach the well didn't i mean it wasn't oh it didn't give any indication that it was particularly deferential to the  the state court finding it it looked at the evidence and determined that the evidence as presented to the distaste court was sufficient to justify a finding that there was no racial intent or discriminatory  in the exercise of peremptory against people who were not death penalty qualified well that's correct but it did so without the benefit of an evidentiary hearing and one of our uncertified purpose in bringing the prosecutor in at this point what with the here is consistent i think it would consist primarily of argument based upon matters that are already in the record why is that the prosecutor and this is what we're complaining about why it is that the prosecutor wants in fact guilty of racial bias in this case and that is although my brief is i admit somewhat conclusive concludes really notice any references in the brief to specific places where i saw the argument but i didn't see any record of references to where different questions were asked a certificate of appeal the ruling there it's laid out exactly what he did there is a side by side comparison with black jury panel members and non  that they asked that question the journalist committed an error by saying sorry there is no longer such a thing under california law which is true and you know at that time there wasn't there isn't t he didn't do that there was a hearing and i quote at length from the transcript in my brief where the charge for where we're sorry but there just doesn't appear to be any evidence of when he asked for this instruction asked for it on the basis that it would go to the specific intent necessary for liability as an aider and abettor under the natural improbable consequence of garten and there misleading instruction to the jury and there is a case that i have cited in my brief and i'm sorry i don't remember the name of it with i think we're all familiar with the general idea that if defense of voluntary intoxication under aiding and abetting theory and so what but why would they be misled if there hadn't been an instruction in the first place on voluntary intoxication it didn't the subsequent instruction by the court did not suggest that they negate an instruction that had previously been given it was simply a case of the court saying that a witness referring to your client as spaced out being informed that there was no diminished capacity defense in the state of california well what i'm saying here and i realize that i have a problem in this car in complaining about a state argument is that the district attorney in this murder trial knowingly used perjured testimony now the way that happened here i think i have to get into what the background of the case was and what some of the facts were this was a case where there were five people involved there were two women one of whom own the van and three other male individuals on even though it would appear that they would be equally locked with the three men now one of the two women a witness named item or was the key witness in this case in other words if it were not for her testimony there would have been no case against deron williams i don't more put him at the scene and said yes he was the mastermind behind behind all of this he decided to do well distracting during the cross examination of either more williams's trial or asked her if she had been paid anything for her testimony you know i read i read that colloquy several times and it reads like an abbott and costello routine he asked you whether she's paid for her testimony that doesn't mean she didn't get travel expenses it doesn't mean she didn't get relocation and means you know has anyone bribed you to testify have you been paid for your testimony i haven't so i just don't see where you've proven that anything she said well was demonstrably false given the precise questions that were asked of her  occurred a year and a half before the trial and more or less right after when the police interviewed item on others they interviewed her and then several weeks later she was paid two thousand dollars you know the question was ar receiving any money i mean that's now in the present tense are they receiving any money she says you know i get i have a job and you know that from the district attorney's office from any witnesses this program no i mean she isn't you haven't shown that she is getting any money other than her travel expenses they didn't know that at the time well then we go where is where is your testimony false she said she didn't get any money and the very first part of the experts records show that she did i say i don't see where the question was her have you ever gotten any money well i think i'd be hard pressed to find it exactly but i think if you read the whole thing again and again the judge and even the prosecutor on redirect examination asked her were you paid anything were you paid anything for your testimony was the question was asked on redirect yeah and she said no apology and well you haven't proved that she was paid for her testimony well it's the court from any witness assistance program you know the problem is that's the follow up are you receiving any money from either the district attorney's office of you from any witness and i suppose you can say i'm not receiving she could well have said well no i'm not now but i was a while ago but that she did respond to the question are you receiving any money from the witness assistance program and she could say no truthfully because she was bassam versus kentucky terms of how that united states supreme court has since been understood by appellate courts there is no such law that any court in this case is ever recognized the state supreme court doesn't give any indication of that the district court excerpts page three sixty five footnotes seven of the magistrate report a recommendation which is adopted by the district court judge so i think in a twenty year old case it is one of the late in the day variations in this case to argue that this is somehow a misinterpretation of that's and versus kentucky secondly the suggestion was made that there ought to be an evidentiary hearing in inquiry as a judge that is extremely attentive to the issues in this case including the bass inclined and certainly conducts a thorough inquiry with respect to every challenge in question and it is also true although is never mentioned by the petitioner that after explaining the challenges and the reasons for them the prosecutor offers to stipulate to a jury entirely comprised of african americans in the new year and that nobody takes him up on that  assuming that that's an exhaustive claim which it is not that is that there was under the miller all case some disparate questioning of african american vs not african american jurors the claim was never preserved and furthermore over seven thousand pages but there was no restriction on anyone's ability to draw that type of distinction and it simply wasn't done and in that regard i would note that there was no reply break file so my claim in that regard went it furthermore the fact is that when it was suggested in the district court the district court indicated that it had reviewed the entire war dire and that its recognized no disparate questioning of any jurors so i'm reluctant to volunteer to debate differences that no one has ever identified other than to stand on the district court's interpretation that the questioning of all these jurors was consistent bit but that there is a reference to the petitioner presenting an alibi defense and then it follows up with an explanation of the conversation with the police was the alibi defense presented trial it was it was and that is one of the reasons judge that that this is this is an academic exercise the defense was not i was there i had some knowledge or involvement but was clouded either because i didn't know what they were about to do which by the way is the sarah side case that was recently cited to this court case from seattle that has no relationship to this case it was i wasn't there i wasn't a part of this contract murder despite the admission of my statements that put me there in my own words so the trial judge and i'm really not going to give a little i do think that in a case of such l his attention to the evidence and the issues presented was exceptional when it is suggested the same argument is made by truck counsel well somebody has used the term spaced out and now the jury has you know for whatever reason posed some question on when they suggestion is made that that brown i think it was described in the spaced out that's it one phrase with an you know many statements that she made he looks spaced out the judge  day i don't recall that admission he may have i frankly just don't recall whether that's in the transcript or not but as you know the statements to police are shifting and contradictory version of events where at certain times he is denying whether he's present at other times he's admitting the ride in the van the presence inside the home and even the trip to collect the payment so  i would like to then turn to the final argument that was raised today with respect to the claim of the knowing use of perjured testimony and that i think can also be simply refuted in this case first of all there is no allegedly she receives any funds at all so it seems to me from from the starting point that argument is moot in other words she has already presented her version to police before any payment is necessarily made to her as far as whether she was paid in what she was paid there a couple things to note it is i think correct as you pointed out your silberman that there is a little bit of a who's on first quality to that dialogue because she does not understand initially what it is that she's being asked and i think it's clear that that it is being suggested to her that she has been paid off or paid for her testimony and that that is false and that she wants to correct that m n there was no clarification of what he said went to what purpose but the fact of the matter is that if she was paid in two thousand dollars several things are true she says on the record actually in front of the jury th paid for airfare she was paid for lodging and she's paid for meals and although i don't have that section of the excerpts in front of me i believe that one point she doesn't dictate that she received the systems fees although i think her answers on that go both ways  terms of what her saying of the meaning of that terminology is second of all as far as the scrap of information which is really all we're talking about that was submitted as part of a b s corpus petition it appeared to me as though that may reflect a mature her not in this case but in the case of the code of type one cox and it's simply unclear whether those payments whether those were in fact also reimbursement type payments or whatever even occurred in this case in the first place but the point is that there was an opportunity presented at trial twenty years ago called more than twenty years ago to explore that issue defense counsel was obviously aware of it that's why he was questioning her on the subject and finally even if in the i think a plea hypothetical event that we were to somehow disregard  that testimony we still have by other evidence in the case of the situation are proceeding in the same course that she describes on his way to the home where of the plan witnessed by a neighbor of the victim outside the home immediately after the shots were fired so it does not graphically alter one's view of the case the final point i would like to make simply because a letter to that effect was filed recently  it was in an argument addressed to i'll be brief about it as it was not addressed here in this whole argument it has to do with the accomplice liability instructions and the claim that somehow or other this crime as the jury was instruct that sort of strict liability potential scenario the prosecutor in that case the trial prosecutor in state court argued that his vicarious liability meant that if he was in for a dime he was in for a dollar basically that he was liable for any police officers when interrogating mr williams did bring up the question of his intoxication and mr williams stated to them and this was brought out at the trial i was smoking pretty tough back then those were his exact words in the smoking was not marijuana it was cocaine and the response to that by detective cruz was i know and so you should be aware that that  in addition to the jury's question about the minister passively there was evidence of intoxication the only other thing i would say i would refer the court to morse the recent case of morris versus i resolve that issue on a point of whether or not there was a duty to investigate in this case which was abrogated by the district attorney just sitting there and not doing anything money in light of all of that is a is a prior payment whether it's for living expenses out of state or otherwise is is there is that material to the outcome of this trial in any way shape or form yesterday i believe that definitely is for this reason because if she learned about that in other words if you can show that there is something where she was asked under oath and she gave an untruthful answer then what about the rest of her testimony what about her putting the defendant right on the spot what about all of that now there was just the fact that she lied about something