WEBVTT

00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:03.640
the first of which this court has found that there

00:00:03.640 --> 00:00:09.349
appears to be intentional discrimination in the panel. That's

00:00:09.349 --> 00:00:13.589
that prima facie case. And I guess before I

00:00:13.589 --> 00:00:18.640
get into this, one of the challenges that I

00:00:18.640 --> 00:00:22.760
think council recognized in this case is the racial overtones

00:00:22.769 --> 00:00:28.309
in the case. And those can't at least here

00:00:28.309 --> 00:00:31.429
without the jury present based on the questioning. We

00:00:31.429 --> 00:00:33.640
have not been able to escape those discussions with the

00:00:33.640 --> 00:00:35.899
panel and they just come up in a lot of

00:00:35.899 --> 00:00:39.289
different contexts. So this is sort of a continuation

00:00:39.289 --> 00:00:41.890
of a conversation that I think will continue for a

00:00:41.890 --> 00:00:46.909
long time with respect to this case and maybe many

00:00:46.909 --> 00:00:50.390
others. Um and so we start getting into this

00:00:50.399 --> 00:00:55.159
question about race. And again, quite a few

00:00:55.170 --> 00:01:00.560
african american jurors were excused through preemptory strikes exercised by

00:01:00.560 --> 00:01:04.120
the defense, but that doesn't mean that the court

00:01:04.129 --> 00:01:10.590
has the authority to receipt um simply again, because

00:01:10.590 --> 00:01:12.049
there's this Prima facie case, because we see it

00:01:12.530 --> 00:01:14.900
sort of one of those, it's not one of

00:01:14.900 --> 00:01:15.290
those, we see it, therefore it is,

00:01:15.290 --> 00:01:18.859
there's now additional steps the court needs to engage in