prosecutors law firm second she didn't he was present when she lied to the judge when he directly asked her did you call the law firm last night answer no and third she lied about how long it had been since the law firm had represented her so faced with these facts and the other facts that are in the record a reasonably effective trial attorney would have forced some quiet kind of inquiry into why was she not telling the truth misspelt the judge just asked you whether you called the law firm last night and you answered no why did you say that respondents counseled speculated as the magistrate judge did on all sorts of possible reasons why she might have lied but these are all speculation because the defense counsel did not ask her or ask the judge to ask her why she was not telling the truth when confronted with a juror who repeatedly fails to answer questions truthfully a reasonably effective defense counsel in a first degree murder case would have asked the judge why to find out why she was not answering these questions truthfully court jostle not to defend mr court just so has a right to have the circumstances of those lies inquired into every single case including every case cited by the respondent in their briefs says for example williams versus taylor the supreme court case they remanded that case for an evidentiary hearing to determine why the juror in that case was not forthcoming with truthful answers and america one of the ones where she just didn't say that she had entire all of the courts even though there was a split on the on by court every member of the court seemed to acknowledge that there had to be an inquiry made the difference between the judge the judges in this court or something i right and he says they never did and in fact if you look at that that's where the transcript is also evidence in and of itself because the transcript particularly particularly the transcript in the middle of the trial when you look at the transcript the middle of trial there is no break there's no what's that statute or look into it already that kind of stuff that if it doesn't nobody follows it up and the judge repeats it again that there's a problem with that in fact what ten seventy four said i don't quite understand how the judge got there i tried to figure out of my brief but what ten seventy four did is limits the challenges for cause in california it said specifically that challenges for cause of california were limited to if you were a relative or if you were a relative the defense counsel or if you were a client of the defense counsel or if there was a there were some other listing of factors that those with the only accepted current challenges for cause with respect to those relationships and that actual statute was repealed prior to his trial so as far as i the judge should have simply dismissed this person no matter what the lawyer yes i think that i think that the judge has the responsibility independently of the beliefs of the defense counsel or the prosecutor independently of those  prosecutor money during trial under california law whether you pay the lawyer money or not is not to terminate about i turn each client relationship that was all they focused in on california law she was he i'm sure he was her question it could have affected her determination of whether she was lying the fact of whether or not she was paying or not i think that's true i think based on what it may make i think it's not even reasonable to assume that that she may have drawn from the colloquy as that happens by have a problem with the premise of your question because you said several times that miss hill trusted the firm i think when you look at the record of the various four years with miss hill what's quite apparent is she had no understanding of the connection between mr rasmussen the prosecutor and her lawyer mr ralston who she trusted was mr ralston in her mind her lawyer was mr ralston not unlike many people when they call a law firm agitated if they can't talk to their lawyer they don't care about the legal niceties of the fact that if you have a lawyer with a five hundred lawyers and it's burned that they're all your lawyer that may mean something to us lawyers and judges but it doesn't mean anything to mrs hill her lawyer was mr ralston so i reject the premise that she also trusted mr rasmussen in fact the record shows that she didn't seem to even know who mr rasmussen was at one point the of the matter is the far more relevant part of trial counsel's declaration is that the founders are still could be fair and impartial he says that twice in this declaration he says after i talk to are on board your i reach the conclusion that she could be fair and impartial then later in the declaration he says and based on my determination that she could be fair and impartial i left her on the jury now it is entirely reasonable it is the essence of trial counsel's representation to make those judgments in court here you have an opportunity not just in the initial word your but also when this matter came up during trial to actually make a connection with the german fact he was the one that did most of the questioning with mr hill when this came up so he's reading her he's using all of the skills the trial can also use is looking at the jurors body language judging or maybe you know she seems like she's really bending over backwards to try to be fair to me now that's great or maybe he's getting somewhere survive from her who knows what but that's what tribal council does and in this case we cannot presume the does give us more deference rather than less the fact of the matter is it was not objectively under reasonable because we can imagine a thousand reasonable explanation undermine trust counsel's determination that went on in trial counsel's head and nothing mr grasso knew anything could be relevant to that trial counsel made that determination that's what trial counsel does every day and so that is say the only reason i can't draw there was we wanted to have women on the jury he says i spoke to my client and there's a conflict about that discussed the possibility of removing her period mr jastrow expressed a desire to keep me still on the jury turning to the due process violation allegation there simply can be no due process violation if the defendant doesn't object to the procedure that allegedly gives rise to the  years the answer is easy and this is where i differ from mr brodrick whatever we may say about the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in your hypothetical mr brodrick said that his rule would be that the judge must excuse or even over the objections of defense counsel i'm going to be screaming like crazy and be told i was compelled to let her go that's going to be the  not there's a specific case addressing due process violation for a lawyer to tell you to object where the where the jurors impartiality or partiality appears in the record i am aware of nothing from the united states supreme court on that point your honor either way  me wasn't very long but it's but in both cases in which there they challenge the jurors it's towards the end of the opinion because that's when he actually gets into the substance of it in both cases they didn't challenge them the main witness who was a the ex husband of a juror and the second one was the prosecutor and williams was represented the jury in her uncontested divorced and there were no objections to either adventure hearing but again your honor i agree the other sure he is only if you get to the question of ineffective assistance i still believe that in this particular case and that's and for and i said what i wanted with that's why it was important that i correct the issue on ten seventy four of the penal code because what that section did in california prior to his trial was that section specifically limited  challenges that statute was repealed five or six years before mr court jostles trial so there was no limitation in california law on the court the trial court for making a finding and a fair reading of this record is the trial court in this case was only going on the idea and and i think the reading is would have excused her had he been told what you've been told that under california law she was the prosecutor of not being biased and she was currently a client of the prosecutor and that had the appearance regardless of what the defense counsel if you like her dressed if you like your hair do whatever it was that she had an obligation as a trial judge to make sure that she didn't s