with regard to the first issue the controlling federal law in the case two rules are well established on the thrill of surrender and organ those rules are that first petitioners entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury and the second in order to protect which is right to fair trial by he must conduct an evidentiary hearing and pull the jurors find out whether they're nervous or not about about the release of their identity then that is then what and all of that comes out of those words ever watchful that's correct and also the ninth circuit in applying these out how the court might resolve that we want to fault the judge for not having conducted a hearing correct the fact in this case indicated clearly that there was some severe and in fact there was a significant fear by the jurors they said not one but two inquiries to the judge whether the petitioner the defendant at the time of trial had access to their personal information in the research that conducted on this issue i never found a single case in which two such inquiries worse than it was an unusual one should have triggered or at least raised a red flag in the judge deliberations run run through the logic of human emotions as to how your would have prejudiced your client here ok let's just say hypothetically the problem in this case of course is that we don't know what happened  don't know what causes just fear of my client we don't know what effect that fear had on deliberations but let's just say hypothetically that the jurors were very afraid of the client this with this would affect their ability to fairly weigh the evidence that was presented in the case obviously they have to weigh in favor of acquittal and that's also what responded argues but in united states versus angle and i circuit cases cited several years ago the court found in a very similar situation that jurors who were fearful of the defendant in the case may have been more likely to this holding hearings which supreme court cases well on this point i do agree with respondents that the supreme court precedent isn't as clear as to why and these do need to inquire is actually triggered isn't that the answer to that i mean not entirely clear the courts are entitled to slightly more leeway i think the supreme court is clear that a suicide for the senate does not define exactly when it's triggered i think we can at least look at the ninth circuit precedent for courts i'd also like to address the court's application of the rule in this case the state court of california court of appeal did correctly identify the initial principle which was that the trial court judge did have where a judge is biased this concept i'm sixty a juror is biased this constitutes a structural error that mandates rehearsal to the extent that the california court of appeal argued that because prejudice couldn't be proven finally i'd like to cite brands which holds that quote even in cases where the government may be correct that a particular incident is not conclusively established bias where the record does not show in enough detail what happened it is impossible to know what the effect was without a but what i'm arguing is that it is of the it's a basic fundamental of our of our criminal justice system that every defendant is entitled to an impartial trial by an impartial jury were gargles of the amount of evidence presented against this kind it could be voluminous evidence there c argument on a death on the evidence presented against the defendant in a trial and that's where their opinion was flawed and thank you look at the women in the for good morning the seminal case here is rumor versus united states that case is now fifty years old with fifty years of case law to work with appellate hers yet to identify a single case that is factually similar to this case or factually analogous to this case in which it was held that a rumor hearing was required the palin has also failed to deal with this court's recent case of tracy versus here and which if the court held that a rumor hearing is not required even though in that case the indications of misconduct were significantly greater than they are in this case in that case you behavior and in an excellent case it is a ninth circuit to tell me in your estimation which supreme court case comes close to the facts we have here  required where the there was a report of a juror having received a bribe obviously this case is so far from that  and go ahead how and how would grammar apply here grammar is clearly established the united states to print court precedents saying that when a juror when there's a report of a juror having received a bribe offer that you need to inquire about that you need to find out about that well we have here is jurors quite  guidance from any of the supreme court cases which would tell us what you know applying that in the state a b s case the answer to the second part of the question is i'm not aware of any as for your first comment i respectfully disagree egregious situation yes we do know because under a d p s a work by we must work by a clearly established united states supreme court precedent and if the united states supreme court precedent has only gone to yes i do agree with that ok so it's not on all fours it's not on any any for it's not thank you thank  to inquire well in that i believe in dyer the court states that some sort of investigation or fact finding should be launched whether in amounts to a formal hearing or not it's not that is not necessary as long as the judge does ask the jurors in believe the judge should have asked the jurors what was causing their fear and whether they could still remain impartial and fairly evaluate the facts it wouldn't have to amount to i'll very formal and lengthy inquiry but some in court it was necessary and it was not  well that's the problem that defense counsel can run into and it's actually mentioned entire defense counsel is put in a precarious situation which if he pursues juror bias and is truly in court is clearly coming from defense counsel he threatens alienating  founding the jurors who are soon going to decide the fate of his client it's better that it comes from the trial judge is not subject to that type of pressure the lawyer can do it off the record you can have a claim accomplice that's not a question at all the question is it's an area where the lawyer can no longer decide for himself or herself what's best for the client the judge is going to jump in and do it which is maybe troublesome and time and your view is the supreme court requires even with  the court as well as the defendant and the prosecution for example let's say hypothetically the defendant had determined that the jurors were clearly biased in his favor in that case it should be the trial judge's duty to step in determine whether that's the case or not again just in the interest of concerned thanks for addressing our concerns about the first thing but we've got now got concerns about the pieces of paper that defense counsel may have had in their possession but just stands back form in blank and doesn't hear anything further from them but he still had a duty to inquire even though we haven't heard any problems from them and they come back with a verdict shortly well the judge's first response the very first sentence and the judge's first response is something to the effect that i can pull these that quote but it's something a fact that the defendant has never been permitted to access your personal information in any way the jurors then come back with a second in corrie although the first think the first response from the judge had already directly addressed their inquiry i think the second in corey was irrational at that point the judge should have thought been put on notice that something else was happening and deliberation room what did the foreman blank show the blank form yeah i don't know that it showed anything but yours asked if they could see a copy of the blank form of the form that the defendant was shown during th resolve that issue in the minds of the jurors well if the blank form doesn't contain information that seems to have been many things have been where where their focus and arrowed after the judge's extensive response to their first question the judge may have assume that the jurors concluded based on his standing in a do believe anglo which is cited in in the opening brief and in the reply as very similar fact that those here in court case it's a ninth circuit case and i think i think he's doing ok and it's far as have a curative instruction of anything but judge the response substantiated the jury's fears of the defendant and finally i don't think robert disposed of this claim as contended by respondent because remember state specifically that if you cannot conclude based on an adequate record whether the