thirty four years to life in prison having been convicted of robbery he was convicted by a jury from which the prosecution systematically removed the hispanic jurors the reasons for  racial in nature or a pretext for racial discrimination rather than focus on the merits of mr steele's claim the government is focusing on of alleged procedural default the issue before the court is whether or not a batson violation has occurred but i'll address briefly the procedural default in order to provide provide an affirmative defense a procedural default the r put cited it in their memorandum of points and authorities but in their actual pleadings the pleading the answer they did not cite to clarke it simply said there was a procedural default but it did side later on in the memorand zero responded to the actual pleading and responded that he denied the allegations of the defense therefore as i read mark can look first of all mark that put the ultimate burden back to the government to show that there has been an adequate that the law has become adequate since that time in other words that it's firmly established and consistently applied since this court ruled him around  focused on in his traverse he understood appears that he understood what the government was talking about was a default under two five five four to five five four in other words the statute of limitations so he addressed most specifically the statute of limitations under that that particular rule and then he did mention that he is substantial that his delay was any gave the reasons again for his delay in filing his behavior petition one month after the court of appeal ruled in his case gaffe the prosecution said well i just missed her because i don't trust people raised in another another legal system whether they be latin or whether they be asian now that's a strange use of terms when you're talking about a legal system we don't refer to like latin legal systems we don't refer to asian legal systems and we don't refer to caucasian legal systems it's clear that at that point in time he was talking the trial court is the only one that decided on this issue because it was not raised on correct appeal and all the control court said was the no discriminatory purpose that was the entire ruling of the trial court that there was no discriminatory purpose if you're talking about under the a which standard of review applies i believe that little mark decision makes it clear that it would be under two to five four d two which is the unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented because the evidence is relied on in this particular case is the evidence from the trial court it is the actual transcripts of the party or in the end the information that was before the trial court i believe in this particular case however even if it was under each one that we could meet the clear before two of the jurors the prosecution said didn't have adequate life experience but when you do a comparative analysis with the other jurors in the pool you know more about those jurors than you do about mr nickel or mr beale all we know about mr nicol is he was he lived in huntington beach and worked for the parks department all you know about mr beale is he was a post office worker who was arrested for being drunk in public once in his life you know a lot about miss martina's she works for  said that they will do the comparative analysis for the first time i review and the trial judge should have known that sitting there at the time of course one of the problems and drive for us to reach this is that this was never raised on direct the description is a bit strange that the prosecutor well what happened was while they the defense counsel named for particular jurors and the juror from panama wasn't one of those four and that's why it looks in the record like trial counsel only gave explanations for for the jurors what happened was when the trial court when the prosecutor was describing why he dismissed juror gayo into the trial court incorrectly stated that she was from panama and then at that point the prosecutor said oh i'm confused i just she was born in panama i'm concerned about people who are raised in foreign legal systems be at latin or asian because i'm concerned about whether they would and here to the rules of our system and we believe that that is facially race neutral while the prosecutor referred to latin and asian system it's clear here that that was illustrated of rather than an exhaustive list some very yes and so we believe that not only was it racially face neutral but rational it was not based on his beliefs that are based on the fact that she was hispanic but it was based on the fact that these are different legal system country one thirty years i think yes your honor and she had served on a juror jury in the past but the fact that she'd been here a long time and had success first off the fact that she'd been here a long time doesn't render the prosecutor credit the prosecutor's explanation and we believe here it was reasonable this is you have the same problem when you excuse people because you are concerned about whether or not they'll follow the  spanish interpreter rather than their own understanding of the spanish language in bilingual cases there's a chance that i think you have to look closely at those because there's a chance that people could abuse us but here the trial court made a credibility to termination he felt that it wasn't a well run organization and therefore that she might not be a well a good sure we're electing house left on this jury yes your honor we know that at least two were left on the jury because at the end of the case the prosecutor race neutral explanation for a strike that a reviewing court should find inadequate suspect that's the ones i can think of from the cases ar occur usually when the prosecutor gives a reason that's wrong a reason that's not supported by the record or like in the case of cancer where they give some that are not racially neutral or those types of reasons  think of an example where you can just discredit or if we should a reviewing court shouldn't be suspicious of someone who lumps all white and all illusion judicial systems together i believe that they the prosecutor here was just using those as illustrations of just foreign legal systems period and i think that that's reasonable because he was concerned that she innocent maybe that would have been fed officials in the past cuter than to keep it there like that but the prosecutor was just concerned about whether she will adhere to the rules of our system based on being raised in a foreign legal system presumably the prosecutor would have the same concerns with somebody who was raised in canada russia maybe not canada i'm not as familiar with i believe their common law but maybe somebody born in russia or in different parts of europe are raised in different spending one hundred thirty four years to life in prison and it's questionable whether he was judged invented by a jury of his peers i believe he needs to be convicted by a jury of this peers if he's going to be serving a life is an element but it is not persuasive it does not take away from one single discrimination if there's one single discrimination in a batson wheeler case that's all that it takes for