proceed when you're ready people couldn't be fair and whether they were being truthful or whether they were being who were just trying to get out of this i mean which is what a lot of people do right the the record reflects that there were a number of jurors that were openly candidly telling the court that they couldn't serve in a capacity and be fair and number of them were excused by and for cause well i think having those individuals come up and say the about their potential biases only speaks to their potential biases it doesn't speak to whatever potential biases the tourists were actually sat may have had the problem with judge don't you have to show us still think that somehow that this did occur can we speculate that it occurred or do you have to establish that it occurred in fact in the brown case wasn't that part of the problem and wasn't the other part of the  lawyers you were not given a crack at the board your was all by the judge well in this case lawyers have their own opportunity to question without apparently any restriction well as the dissent speaks to that in brown running the defense counsel of mr meeks in this case to question the jurors does not necessarily care the problem because the fact that it was the judge herself who made the error to ask that there why then ask the potential jurors if what she said intimidated them is not likely to going to get an answer of yes you intimidated me because if they're already in wrong maybe that's why it's not an advisable practice but the question was whether it's reversible error whether it rises to that matter and i think it does because i think in cases like this where you're dealing with the potential biases of juries are going to say and decide the fate  placed in the same position as your that you think some of the comments though really dispel that notion this particular record now here we have a judge was and he's you know talking to these jurors and one of the jurors said that they couldn't be fair because they defended his wife now i don't think that that indicates any fear at all and another defend yes that or another juror said she could she didn't know she could remain on fear fair because she used to live next door to some lesbians the kinds of comments that were coming out of these  me that only speaks of their well i mean i just i can't believe that these people were in fear when they were making racist comments when they were making comments know were they lying about this were they just trying to get out of jury duty were they did they feel they could be so outrageous and say things simply to get out of curiosity or were they being  so i don't know that this record is demonstrating that they were inhibited it appears that they weren't inhibited and they weren't placed in here because of their saying you can't make a jury at that point would there be any concern about the judge chastising that jerk in front of everyone else it might be a good thing circumstances eleanor is a jury smart enough to know that this guy is a smart alec i pad and consequently if i'm sincere i have to agree i think that is certainly a possibility but in that example the error is with that potential juror and the air we're talking about here is what the judge has to do by imposing some kind of punishment on a potential juror that's what if those here are coming to watch a jury proceeding is not so you know it's not putting  that would be enough of a deterrent if you told a judge nor judging someone that of back to doesn't have any particular black marks against them that that's not the right thing to do that it would not was not sufficiently prejudicial what you're trying to make out of this is a constitutional structural and back when i think require a bit more than simply the and what the film court said was judge lies actions in brown while ordering the juror to return just was not did not reach the level of penalty that was founded i mean we're not saying that what happened in bell is what happened here but surely what happened here by chastising this juror embarrassing him pointing him out to the rest of the jury and then ordering him to come back and threatened with arrest if he doesn't come back that certainly falls closer to the penalty that was invoked in better than it does to what happened in brown where it was simple chats and then ordering the jury to come back this this area that judge was made was such that it certainly could have intimidated a juror who was afraid to be candid for fear of being r think the jury did but who's to say that they maybe they found him to be persuasive and this is the burden of acquitted him of but the problem is we are speculating and we shouldn't have been put in the position where because of the judge law this out of bounds comic that we have to speculate and whether or not there was any bias on the jury what she does she did was unacceptable this right is a bedrock of the judicial system every defendant with a jury trial is entitle to a fair and impartial jury and the fact that he did th to to find his biases and as i was saying it well you're not going to do it if you're going to jump down the jurors throats when a jerk comes out and says that yes i'm truly good but when i look at the record the fact that after that you had several jurors who said i think i'm going to be by a straight can't be unbiased i should say and nothing happened to bet that further reassures those jurors i didn't say anything the fact that well you know at best people can make  inhibit blatant attempts to avoid jury service us survive how much more a living hit the sides that is the question which is why everyone agrees that it shouldn't be done the question is what's the consequence once it starts at the majority at least them run seem to feel the harmless error analysis is sufficient to preclude reverse wear but i think going back to brown and this there may be some question about their inherent power but i would think that judges do not have the power to compel someone to come back that that's probably ultra absent contempt i don't think that judges have the inherent right to order anybody to do anything once they're disengaged from the from the jury so that when the