speedy trial i missed and start off with the germans conduct basically in a case like this very rarely do you have a peek into the jurors mind that we can submit with the record and in this case we have that we have mr martin's letter which i attach the talks about his particular interest ideas thought processes about this defendant is our client's defense and the crux of what happened in this trial was when they were doing war view and the court was conducting war gear the court asked on three different occasions and they noted each time this case involves homosexual activity it involves a homosexual advance and a murder that far a homicide followed and in all three occasions knowing these things can you still be impartial mr martin didn't say anything at any one of those junctures is it your contention that he was that he was misrepresenting his views to the court yesterday and what and what evidence do you have for that with the letter your honor and quite specifically in this letter he talks about how his i thought how he understands the homosexual ideology and how homosexuals act react with but how does that relate to whether he thinks that he can be impartial about whether certain acts have or have not been committed well i think frankly on his third the third page of his letter he sums out up tell he can't be impartial he says mr bell our client is a weight lifter every gay man's dream he then talks about how he sees mr the victim must have seen mr bell in shorts and he says we g chances he makes a pass how else are you going to know implying how is he going to know whether or not he's gay the point of that is this what that went to was the heart of mr bell's defense counsel this sort of comes under the rubric of be careful what you wish for the letter from the jerk expresses his dissatisfaction with the fact that your client only got second degree murder not first degree murder so what's the harm here if you claim that you got a mr martin should have told the court these types of ideology to get out of himself and and said i might not be a juror his case because in my own personal preferences yes or much like three of well i don't think it's not necessarily a requirement but in a case like this where it comes up on three occasions very close in time to one another  dear mr martin given his thought processes that are brought out in the letter he should have told him or should've told the court and he could have approached i'm not talking about outing someone in the middle of court or anything like that the three jurors that were excused because of their thoughts on homosexuality came up to the bench explain themselves to the court and without any further questioning from the court or the the attorneys w to accurately respond or failed to elucidate something that was repeatedly questioned the question here was whether the jurors could perform their duties honestly whether they felt they could decide based upon the evidence that was presented i'm interested where in the letter of you find it and expressed misrepresentation or an obligation under mcdowell that this juror mr martin had an obligation to come forward to the court well i think in page two your honor what would you read to me specifically what you're talking about well i think it goes  it's actually a one paragraph but unless someone has a working knowledge of the mindset of a queen in quotes you need to rely on information provided by someone who does and i'll stop there and just briefly that's part that's the standard of mcdowell's that not well it's failing to answer yes it's failing to honestly answer a question what's what did mr martin fail to honor and to answer honestly regarding specific questions that were put to him i think that the question about this case involves homosexuality and homo sexual advance if there's anything about that cause you to be impartial that's where he failed to answer honestly because clearly in the letter he expresses and i agree that he wanted a tougher punishment he didn't get it but in that sense in this letter he expresses some particularities that he should have answered about being impartial you know gay man i've learned through better experience that even the most subtle past can bring dire consequences that's the heart of this for me most about the latter is the sense that the juror may have thought that he understood more about the facts than the lawyers were willing to bring to it that he was willing to bring sort of his own experience and stored up and if i can put it this way from looking at the record it's very clear that the judge said i'm wanting to know that refrain of the homosexuality would affect anyone's ability to be impartial in this case mr martin did not raise it and didn't say anything at least at the beginning of the trial he stated that he was not going to have a problem with that you look at the letter more compulsion to write this letter almost suggest that he had done what he had to do but now i want to tell you some feelings that he has what is the standard is the standard whether the cure feels that he or she can be impartial at the beginning of the looking at the beginning of the case that is during why dear you'd almost have to go through after a trial and parse through the lives of every juror to see whether there were things in their lives that influence them in a particular way that not been addressed how you have a little over a minute and a  jurors after trial post verdict to see whether or not at that point and then take into account that they were fair and impartial but counsel it seems to me with respect that's exactly what you're doing because if you look at the if you didn't look at the transcript mr martin did not speak the judge ask a question whether the jurors could be impartial except for the two who asked to be excused because they didn't think they could be nobody else there was a problem he had spoken after the fact you have other than referring to the letter which came after the fact have not told i think anything that suggests that mr martin he could and there are so so if that's the case then we go back to the letter and just by being mentioned that it is a little disturbing here because clearly this gentleman had some strong feelings however he wasn't asked about was not asked about those and jurors bring their own feelings to the jury box as it were and what i want to understand is what are you asking us to do here are you asking us to adopt a totality of the circumstances things that you know your honour's apply that test to these unique circumstances where we do have a letter and mr mind i said it over and i apologize for repeating myself mr martin's letter provides a unique insight into what he was thinking prior and after that trial he didn't change his thoughts those thought patterns didn't change between why dear and when he wrote the letter prior to sends a true don't know from this letter to you what he was thinking it was you know what he thought once they got into the trial and evidence was presented but what in this letter tells us what he was thinking at the time of the watch here well i think i would point to the part about making a pass at a straight man and the particular thing inner workings and thinking of queens and what they do and don't do when during or know anything about that at the time of the volunteer diddy i'm a student how much did he know about the case  l you know there was that there was the there was a homosexual act that was involved that he knows the weightlifter you know ok i don't think you know we had a queen involved i got to reading from the record i don't think so to the question i asked mr howe about about how much a juror brings race to mr howe's answer is well of course we have jurors who bring who bring their own experiences all the time it's very difficult to avoid them and unless you're advocating a rule that would disqualify all saying is that in these types of cases where these are there is these particular nuances involving a homosexual act in a straight man and the judge did ask it involves i think he said in the homosexual advance and the s of what mr martin was thinking other than the latter and that's what the insight that we're garnering from but but we have to judge this case based upon what's on the record yesterday and what based on what is in the record  that point didn't know what the fact what the case was going to be yes and no i certainly i can't say what mr martin was thinking but what i and i said it before what i can say is that