and the software. it's not learning as we drive but it's learning as we go. >> how did it know there was a stop sign. >> there was map indication about where the stoplights are. >> that was a car that did that. >> the car did it by itself, yes. >> it wasn't sherbet speed. >> yes. [inaudible] i take over manually and i push this down and it's back to manual mode. and it says its autonomous ready. >> can you do that on the fly. >> yes. >> autonomous driving. - it's it striving by itself again.

>> it's creating all of these things. [inaudible] so it's not quite ready to be sent out on a road it's never been on before it can be on highways it's never been on, it can do that. [inaudible]

were back on that curvy winding road. >> can it read signs? >> it can read some signs, but not all signs. >> wherever you see that red line, the red line is exactly on top of that. >> how far have you driven in this car autonomously.

>> what's the longest trip you've ever taken. >> we have done a couple hundred miles on highway. i can basically drive from san francisco to new york city. [inaudible] highway is not a problem. >> when will we do this

regularly as consumers? >> simple question, i will give you the long answer. the human must be sitting at the wheel. next year they will introduce a similar feature a call super. [inaudible] many high-end. [inaudible] some of these are already available. 3 - 5 years from now, we expect. that is called geo- fencing.

bicyclists are not allowed. >> we've deployed some of these technologies earlier, when can the human not drive at all, that is technology from any point a to point b that drivers can drive in the u.s. we have come a long way over the past decades or so but we still have a ways to go before the human can really take himself out of the driver's seat, go to the backseat. that's quite a ways off. >> have you allowed your kids or your wife to ride with you in the autonomous car. >> sure we had family members go around for many of the rights.

>> i was little surprise we didn't have to sign a release before we got in. [inaudible] why are we talking to you about autonomous cars in pittsburgh rather than detroit or silicon valley? >> great question. it's globally well-known for computer science and engineering as well as robotics. we haven't entity called the robotic institute on campus. it has more than 100 researchers in it, excluding students, and they are all extremely knowledgeable of robotics and they have been at cmu since the

1980s. in fact, we believe that we are dating back to 1983 or so, couple years back we literally celebrated the 30th day of this technology on campus. >> you said, before we started this interview, computers are simultaneously very intelligent and very stupid. yes, computers are intelligent. they can do things that amaze us. they can actually activate quickly and make decision to an normal person seems extremely hard. how did it know it should be driving at this speed, slow down and go this way. they have sensory data stream

from lazar and radar from camera. very sense that print the same time their stupidity as well because they don't have common sense. for example we know when we fall down or when we touch fire it hurts in the next and we will do it. computers cannot do that i think i crashed into something he and next time don't do that. it will do the exact same thing unless it's programmed to do something else specifically by a human being. >> what's the difference between the two vehicle that we see in the lab, the jeep that has a lot of equipment and the cadillac that we rode in. we see two, one is a jeep and the other is the cadillac that was doing the driving itself. on the left, the red jeep was

created that this is an 11th generation that they have created. it's being run by one professor who actually directed the institute mentioned a while back the vehicle on the right is the cadillac that we were able to drive today. that vehicle was created by another project with support from general motors in the u.s. board of transportation in the science foundation. because of our close rate working relationship with gm, we had extremely sensitive to the vehicle with the exterior aesthetic and interior aesthetic as well. we wanted to look very normal,

it's something gm would be proud to work with this manufacture and sell. >> how far along are we with this technology? >> the technology has come very rapidly in the past several years since the accomplishment that has come very far. [inaudible] the outcome is six teams competed in this team one. the notion of a car that can drive itself is no longer science-fiction. it's only a question of when, not if. since then, google hired key people from stanford university who was a runner-up in the competition and that's how google launched its car.

then google publicized the technology and invested hundreds of millions of dollars in the technology and companies like uber came to be and they have a financial economic incentive to have the vehicles drive themselves. meanwhile the carmakers in the u.s. and then audi, nissan, honda and toyota are basically wanting to have part of the market. all of them have been investing big time. [inaudible] we have a lot of action in terms of investment, research and

creating technology portfolios from car makers to supply chain and companies like google, uber, apple and others. the technology is progressing very rapidly. >> you talk about it as action, but it is a competition? are they developing their own system just like you are here. >> thanks to capitalistic forces, there is is a lot of competition. this market is expected to be huge in 15 or 20 years so all these companies that we just discussed are positioning themselves to own pieces of the technology and becomes leaders in this space. that's what the competition is all about. it's not about sharing. >> what about the city of pittsburgh, has it been supportive? >> the city of pittsburgh has been a top-notch supporter of this technology.

we have been driving cadillac since 2011 on the streets here and they have been friendly to this technology as well here in pennsylvania. the larger pennsylvania allow us to drive vehicles with the technology as long as there is a human license driver in the driver seat and that person can take over control at any time. besides that the vehicle can drive itself and if something goes wrong because there's a human and the driver seat, the human will be liable. >> what has surprised use in 201111 when you bought this cadillac. >> what has been satisfying is a vehicle that looks normal on the outside and the inside but it is still able to package all the technology.

the technology can be pleasing as well. >> what have you taught the computer about the entire system since 2011? what additional information. >> the system, to drive itself, and needs needs have sensors like camera, lasers and radar and motors of some kind that invoked the breaking action, but at the end of the day, all of that data being collected have to be collected by a bank of computers. all of that happens by software. it literally has hundreds of thousands of lines of software that can be applied to the rules of the road.

it's incorporated into the software. at the end of the day, it's in the software artificial intelligence. >> ten years from now are we can look at this cadillac and say that was a nice black-and-white tv. >> yes. fifteen or 20 years from now people will talk about look at how plain that little vehicle was. what's the difference between anna thomas car and a connected car. we were up and am city in ann arbor as well. >> anna thomas cars capable of driving itself using centers and sensors and computers that are built into the vehicle.

it has data coming in from those sensors and sends local commands commands for speeding and breaking. that's economist. a connected cars capable of communicating with the cloud on the internet, traffic lights and traffic signs and other components. [inaudible] it can widely communicate with many things in the environment. a connected car is capable of communicating wirelessly, they know who it is, where it is, what it plans to do and send only the environment with information so if the traffic light just turned red it can

stall a vehicle on the lane ahead and other information can be received and can generate information to the human driver. it will let the human know if there's a problem, slow down. this is a huge safety enhancement, if you will. up to 80% can actually be prevented by using connective technology. it is combining the two to have a connected autonomous vehicle so there you get the benefits of conductivity and automation. >> would that take a big investment in u.s. infrastructure to get connected cars on the road?

>> great question. connectivity requires a small wi-fi like device that uses the wi-fi technologist technology that all of us use on a regular basis that send and receive messages. one of those devices only costs $100 but it's very, very expensive. when you send out messages it can go as far as 600 meters. it sees a lot more than anything like the lasers on the radars can see. for $100 you see much farther and they can literally see around cards as well because of a radio wireless tool that gives you this superhuman vision if you will. the capability can come in low prices compared to the technology. in the u.s., each state has its

own jurisdiction and they come up with their own local laws that apply within the state. you get a license from the state to drive. you can also use license from ohio and sylvania and california. at the end of the day the state has the final say. they have their own rules for automation and connected cars. it will be a nightmare for auto manufacturers. once you cross the state line, the laws can change. what they are looking to do is provide some guidance to all 50 states so they can be harmonized so if i can operate in one state hopefully the same technology can be used in a neighboring state.

>> have you gotten to the point where you put maybe 20000 miles on the cadillac driving it autonomously, have you gotten to the point where you will look away from the windshield while it's driving. >> yes i've accumulated 20000 miles, it so happens that when we do demonstrations that we have sometimes public and vip in the car and then cameramen are watching me all the time and when i take my eyes off of the road, my hands are not in control. it does happen subconsciously, yes. >> what's the main reaction you get for people riding in the car with you? >> there's a sequence that happens. most people riding in a driverless car for the first

time, the typical reaction is one of anxiety and fear and occasionally even panic attacks. then they basically watch that the vehicle is able to drive and it's stopping when it should stop, it's taking the curve rather comfortably and they recognize the ability and they become more comfortable but they are watching very intently. what is it doing. it does seem to know what it's doing. a few more minutes go by and they start conversing with other people in the car and after a while they stopped noticing what the car is doing. the relationship between acute anxiety takes between five or 15 minutes depending on the person. the concern is not that people

are fearful. people become too comfortable to quickly. the technology has quite some ways to go to be used on a day-to-day basis and this human still needs to be in the loop instead pay attention. it seems all the send this technology is wishing towards us. is that just a perception because of the media. >> because of the huge market that exists, many industries are interested, number two, they get advances made and since then people know that the technology is viable and there's a significant amount of investment

on the technology side and a lot of aggressive marketing to get the word out that these companies are working on a particular piece of technology. as the combination of technology advances, the potential for economic gains in the future continue. >> what about security and privacy? so much of this technology is out there on the airwaves. >> because these are driven by computers, we have to be cognizant of and cautious about possible. [inaudible] this could include cyber security attacks where i can send information out, i can also receive information back in and

it becomes potential for attack. we need to be careful where our tax come from from the state, the continent or globally. again, they ask what can be done in the physical context. for example you can jam gps or possibly spoof gps. you can use simple laser devices to confuse the sensors causing them to make mistakes so there are cyber security threats and particular attacks that are possible. finally, what's the next generation? are you working on the next generation of technology for this vehicle. >> yes, we are focused on the

next generation as being. they all had very similar. [inaudible] then number two is the cadillac that you see behind me. think of them as number two. the next innovation will be focused on automated of trade technologies. they will be able to deal with a lot more scenarios on the road and they should be able to drive on the road that they've never seen before. >> what's your biggest frustration with this technology? >> i guess it's been very satisfying so it's not that i have many frustrations. it's the challenge, beginning

with the inherent computer, what is is obvious and silly and basic to a human needs to be taught painstakingly to a computer. that just takes time. >> thank you for your time. >> it's been a pleasure to talk to. >> next week the communicators looks at connected cars at a research test site in michigan. cars that are able to talk to the road, traffic signs into the cars around them. if you would like to see some of our previous communicators programs, go to cspan.org. our campaign 2016 coverage continues on c-span with live debates for u.s. house, senate and governors races. tonight eddie eastern, utah's force district congressional debate between mia love and

democrat doug owen, followed at ten by the arizona u.s. contest between john mccain and democratic congressman and kirkpatrick. on tuesday evening at seven, north carolina's governor debate between republican governor pat and roy. on wednesday evening at 80 eastern, mike lee and democrat misty snow debate for the u.s. senate. then on thursday, just after noon, the pennsylvania eighth district debate between republican brian fitzpatrick. at seven, richard burr and democrat deborah ross debate for the north carolina u.s. senate. on friday night at 80 eastern, the wisconsin u.s. senate debate between ron johnson and former democrat senator. that's followed at ten with joe heck and catherine cortez debating for the nevada u.s. senate. watch our complete campaign 2016 coverage on c-span and online at cspan.org.

listen on the c-span radio app. >> the county sheriff for republican and former democratic lawmaker are running in the first congressional district in arizona to replace and kirkpatrick who is running against senator john mccain. they debated recently on the second amendment on the coal industry and another of other matters. good evening and welcome to the special election 2016 edition of arizona horizon. tot s a debate. we will hear from candidates competing to represent arizona's congressional district one. as with all of arizona horizons debate, this is not a formal exercise. it's an open exchange of ideas, an opportunity for give-and-take

for candidates for one of the most important offices. interjections and interruptions are allowed provided that each side to the fair shake and we will do our best to make sure that happens. this is the tenth largest congressional district in the it takes in much of eastern arizona. 25% of the population is american indian. it's being vacated by and kirkpatrick. we now move on to our debate. the candidates and county sheriff and republican and former state law maker. each candidate will have one minute for opening and closing statements. we drew numbers to see who that honor goes to. >> thank you ted. thank you for horizon. i grew up in a family, a working-class family. that family worked day in and day out, and every weekend i

watched him put together a little notebook of what was going to occur with his ability to provide for our family in the coming week. : >> >> and have worked hard leading over 600 men and women to protect family is

an arizona and we have done a good job. with the $3 billion surplus in history fighting the cartel i have the honor to serve our nation as an army officer. started off as a private and is served 20 years with the two were in iraq and commanded soldiers on the board i enforcing the law law, securing the border and protecting america. i do feel our nation is more secure or more saves than eight years ago. our economy is struggling, national debt is $20 trillion. we have to fix our country. i will be a part of the solutions for our country of lowering taxes and regulation to put america and our citizens first. >> moderator: let's get it going. where you representing this position in this district in congress but. >>.

o'halleran: looking at health care and i have had a successful record with bipartisanship across party lines sometimes against my leadership sometimes with my leadership to find solutions and not tear people apart to make sure that working families are first. i believe with my skills set in my experience in law-enforcement and that has the same perspective. >> moderator: same question. babeu: this is about jobs and people are struggling to make ends meet and the government has become too large and too costly evidenced by a $20 trillion deficit. we have to cut spending. we cannot continue to think we will spend our way into prosperity or tax.

that has failed in arizona and a nationally. we need new leaders. i am an outsider not just as steam plant look at the budget i have asked for more money because i provide a core service i have to keep 53 vacancies in the sheriff office so nobody can convince me we cannot cut back or set priorities and lived within number means because this really threatens and their hearts the taxpayer while 95 million americans are out of work. >> getting back to washington, cutting back and spending in general but. >> investing in our future is a priority to make sure relive within our means is a priority. i will not haphazardly cut across-the-board with education issues to address the infrastructure needs.

whether with military or borders one. these are prime areas to invest. to protect the american citizen. and it identifies clearly i can do that with my record. i have a record with business. personal income-tax is, $500 million with small businesses and people for our state. for the appropriations exports out of this country. i have the experience and that background. >> moderator: but where appropriate? babeu: when you hear the keywords investing that is more of the same. that will not fix summer country. it will not bring trillions of dollars that are offshore and how do we do that? we cut taxes and literacy

reduce all the tax brackets into three main categories for every taxpayer and also the corporate tax. some people say we will have less money for the government. if you believe in the concept i am not that guy to vote for but i say get a government out of the way and allow the job creators, small business, to create the jobs, create opportunity. that is where to much costly regulation has strangled our economy and jobs. >> moderator: some will argue that the government has been pushed too far and we had an economic crisis? babeu: perfect example is right here in arizona and nationally on that point but fannie mae freddie mac. you can see all of these loans that are propped up by government and the housing crash and collapse take place who was a party?

picking winners and losers. but here and arizona the epa that has caused in, in the name of trying to protect our environment, but they have done and we have talked about this comment to harm and destroy our environment. look at the forest service they say they try to protect our forests by 20 percent have been destroyed or burnt . and environmental the week cannot safely complement plumper and industry. o'halleran: by have cut taxes in my career on a consistent basis to improve conditions for working-class families. and all the while running a smile does -- a small business to make sure that paychecks go out to the workers and make sure we expand the business. i have a lot of experience in the private sector and

the government sector to make sure redo not overregulated. overregulation is a cost factor of one to mention that is not passed on to the businesses to hinder the ability to hire citizens. babeu: what i have not done because this is important important, talking about the republican when you lost your election because you voted for massive budget increases under governor and appalling tunnel they said watch out. because 64 percent 64 percent of the reason we had to sell the state capital because we didn't have many after left office so we had to listen to it that the structurally unbalanced budget now the governor is fighting for our recovery is not about spending more money. as much as you say you cut taxes the record shows that massive increases of

spending, 64% m that is the wrong type of philosophy of investing, to send to washington added time when we are about to collapse. o'halleran: may have almost 1 billion people while the legislature with 27 percent inflation factor we had to pay back $2 billion worth of funding for schools that had been deferred. we dealt with a lawsuit of almost $600 million and we agreed to put more money into universities and colleges and our education system and dealing with preform for the children to have health care. and many more including $10 billion per year with border security.

>> can use that number as the population increases? >> you were talking to the sheriff two has the responsibility of public safety with the fastest growing county in our state. one of the fastest-growing counties in america. might budget did not grow by 64 percent in fact, it was cut back 8%. that is millions and millions of dollars. you cannot say the state is growing in we have to increase spending by 64 percent. that is how we got into this mess we had to sell the government buildings government% this is embarrassing with the legislature to buy back the buildings the nine story tower even the governor's office said that is fiscally irresponsible. o'halleran: we cut budgets when they needed to be cut to improve the infrastructure to improve

and build the disease your. the old concept because governor brewer said it was trouble does not mean it was because of what occurred before. we improve the entire situation. we went from the legislature in the rating of midteens up at over 50 percent for all people knew things were being done for them and they're future. the idea is to prioritize those cuts the don't injure the future of america. when you do deal with issues of mortgages, led the republican senate and congress and president should have dealt with those issues over six years. babeu: new joke of votes. and the fact is when you were fired from your job as a legislator, the leaders in our state had to pay off the debt not just the state buildings, the highest per capita debt per citizen of any state. we all remember the

catastrophe and the billions of dollars of california to try to get out of that mess. we were further in debt than they were. i do want to raise the issue of coal because it deals with us and we both talked about it and jobs. we have full cold fired generating stations all right in this district that we are seeking to represent. level fight to preserve call as an energy source, not just because as the 5,000 jobs directly connected to the generating stations or the minds -- the cold winds or the train conductors and engineers also the electric rates. everybody pays electric. it could be as high as 40% immediately passed on so we have to discuss that issue. >> let's get to the coal industry. >> all those very well i've

got around the state tuesday be will protect those jobs. this regulatory environment of the epa puts forward without talking to the communities are understanding the needs of our school districts or understanding the long-term viability of financial energy threat, as a country whether the last decade or two decades, investing seriously in an clean coal technology. we need to do those. i told my position. babeu: during the last debate you said publicly use supported the epa. o'halleran: no i didn't. babeu: that is how i understand it. o'halleran: note dated not. pet reporting across all newspapers and the workers of the factories that i

against the regulatory environment and what i have been saying is consistent. >> we were both in told brock talking to the train conductors and engineers at know if you remember about one-third there was about 120 in that room. tom spoke first and i spoke second. they asked a question and you can ask the union president and other members there and they recollect that you told them you don't trust the republicans to clean up the pollution in the environment there for you support the clean power plant. o'halleran: you were not there. babeu: i was there. o'halleran: your not in the room you had gotten their late and that is not what i told them. that is what they recollect that is not what occurred.

babeu: why would the union almost every one of them that were democrats and they voted almost unanimously to when doors me and gave me a $5,000 check and the reason they said we know you will fight for coal as an energy source and fight for our jobs. o'halleran: every other union that represents the energy industry has endorsed me. babeu: use a something in one group and say something else. o'halleran: the bottom line is simple. i have been endorsed by the vast majority you have been endorsed by one. babeu: day will support the democratic candidate. one of the few opportunities was given to speak to reunion and i won them all over almost unanimously because they know i will fight the epa to stand up to the president like i did on the second amendment which i understand you change your position.

>> moderator: hold on. the second amendment. o'halleran: i have been endorsed by the nra multiple times, i have changed the position as far as i believe terrorist should not be allowed david paul. i believe that felons should not be allowed the loophole to purchase firearms. babeu: the nra has unanimously endorsed me. o'halleran: i would not be surprised because that will live to that direction. babeu: i met with the president based to face and said i know you are a friend of president obama with lack of security and enforcing the law with executive action item like to have you want the town hall with the president to ask questions. i said i can ask directly quite see said yes. i came on and he tries to

make the same argument that you try to make. they are false arguments. any executive action or infringement on second amendment reword a police officer in chicago, you should know this. >> moderator: let him respond. o'halleran: people should be allowed protection and their homes, cars, on their person . i agree with all of that. for those that are felons and terrorist should have no ability of legal aid to procure weapons. i worked as an undercover officer to make sure those weapons were off the street. babeu: because now you used to be against a bombing care and now you are for it. you used to have a different position now laughter to show phone calls now mr. o'halleran is dark. >> very quickly i knew they were against the loophole

changes so why phillip the questionnaire that would allow them? again i am public sift safety office i what citizens protected what not do away with the second amendment. >> moderator: we need to move on because we're running out of time. knowledge general question that has been brought up before on this debate. you became independent now a democrat. why should voters trust you have a commitment to ideals when you get back to washington? o'halleran: the same ideals as before it is simple. to represent the people of congressional district number one. did never questioned what i was in the legislature. public policy was never questioned if i was representing the people

before the party or the addition. i lost my chairmanship because if off for the people so the fifth thought that i but not fight for this is a sense is ridiculous. babeu: i do not buy that because he did not represent his district that we do not like what you are doing and you got fired because you're taxing and probing of the budget, a 64%. you cannot have it both ways. then you ran as an independent years ago. now the very month the city will run for congress that is a political opportunist. o'halleran: you cannot acknowledge the real math. twenty-seven% inflation to set aside the issues that word decades that we had to take care a 20% growth of population. those of the real numbers.

tell these children were impacted with the school system? >> moderator: there have been questions regarding use switching parties regard this of the school the attorney general had to investigate the alleged allegations to deport a mexican man who would reveal personal details of your life. and now they're looking at the rico funds. >> had the primary going eight ways i emerged $4 million later as all the candidates talk about these it is gone on for years. the day that i when tom and his allies instead of introducing him what he stands for attacked me. listened to my response.

o'halleran: your inability to tell the citizens the trip to everything that was the wing on. then the video comes out. babeu: we have a video investigation to prove that is not the case i was deposed in interview there was no finding anybody responsible. this is the democrats trying to say and do whatever they can. o'halleran: as an investigator i have had cases time and time again. all the sudden a video comes out when a person testifies that yes side to everything that was occurring. it is very clear. you do this. babeu: but for those kids that were expelled or

incarcerated. the psychiatrist on staff that gives you a sense of the school, i was there to years out of 30. the investigation started years before was there and concluded after i left. i was never named in any stuff. >> the argument you're headmaster and executive director and do should have known. babeu: we talked about that before. this investigation found nobody was responsible. it was three years after andy it moved to florida. you have already admitted he did not read that. >> moderator: here is room wanted to go with a question. the point was people are worried because of switching

parties are they are worried about you because of the investigations and allegations. so how pledge to respond to summon -- someone quite. >>. babeu: people don't know me as soleil a team won but army veteran. by but i get stopped by the superintendent and the schools of arizona as a hero of education? webcast your was recognized nationally as a protector of children. this is what i have done and why it is such a personal affront to meet. >> moderator: and stem that. -- i understand that but if you see that high-level plan to not be concerned? babeu: it was sent high-level it was concluded 15 or 20 years ago. that is different than what you said. they found there was nothing there.

>> moderator: the same question goes to you how would you feel for a candidate running for office that picks up party? o'halleran: have that person in the past what have they done? if they take the lead their party to say i think you are wrong i will make to the children of our states are protected? i trust that. i trust the past actions as they need to understand the taxpayer. >> we have to stop right there we have to get to closing statements going in reverse order. babeu: for me it is the great honor to serve our community and understate to put arizona first. to put america first. that is what i have done as the sheriff 20 years also in the army.

to serve as a private working my way up to a major serving in iraq. looking at security a variation first but that is not the case of this of ministrations. i want to change that. i wanted but arizona and our jobs first. you heard about call i will protect coal and the jobs associated with it to have a 30% increase of the rates that we pay. i am on the side of reducing taxes, cutting regulation, parts of the up albright and planned there is a better way for our country. if you want that with a greater opportunity for our country and ask for your vote and it is my privilege to serve you teach 20. o'halleran: i am on the side of the american families of congressional district number one. i have improved the taxes in the schools in arizona and tell the republicans

decimated the funding in 2010 through 2012. i have handled the infrastructure in the state to work to make sure that our water is taken care of. and most importantly i have a record that shows the work with people for a viable work with anybody from either party the matter the president, the betterment of the citizens of congressional district number one i will be there for them because i always have been. thanks to the voters and understand i am the best candidate congressional district number one because i have the record. >> moderator: gentlemen thank you so much we appreciate you coming in. and thanks for watching this special election debate from the candidates from congressional district number one. keep watching for political coverage with this very important election year. i am ted simons thanks for

joining us. you have a great evening.

did not waste his time fighting the republican nominee. up next the oral argument in the case of a texas death penalty case the defendant was sentenced to death after an expert witness testified that black people are more violent than others so lawyers argued because of the race is testimony his death sentence should be thrown out. >> we would reorganize next. >> mr. chief justice may yet please the court to wade was condemned to death after whose own court appointed trial attorney knowingly introduced an expert opinion that he was more likely to commit criminal acts of violence in the future because he is black this evidence encourages the sentencing jury to vacate critical dangerous decision

that is the prerequisite for a death sentence and a central disputed issue at sentencing not based on the individual facts or circumstances of his crime or life history but instead based on a false and pernicious stereotype. >> didn't that expert say i don't think you'd be a future danger quite. >> on cross-examination he did testify he did believe that mr. buck would commit future crimes of violence and that at the prosecutors' questioning that mr. buck was on the low end of the continuum but could not save that he was not likely to commit criminal acts of violence. but. >> more likely than not quick. >> he was on the low end of spec drama as far as rask but here with experts evidence in a prejudiced

bone dash prejudiced tim during the sentencing but put the courts in in jeopardy surtaxes acknowledge the ordinary interest does not apply. in publicly aide declared that it would waive the procedural defenses to allow new sentencing hearings in six capital cases including mr. buck with those same experts that offered the opinion. texas completed five cases that reversed course and mr. buck case alone. as a result he is the only texas prisoners to face execution pursuant to my death sentence that texas itself has acknowledged is compromised by racial bias to undermine the confidence in the criminal-justice system. >> what you are arguing for is the question on the fifth in circuit standard to save

their imposing the undue burden some but today it is focused on the underlying merits of the case. that you have to make the choice? if you focus on the merits to look at the favor you cannot look at that threshold but if you focus on availability all be say it is substantial show ring. what you want us to do the appeal or the merits? >> to determine if mr. buck was entitled to the appeal that the spread circuit had to determine if the decision was affecting the constitutional and procedural question. >> right. is that what you want us to say? because the merits are debatable and should have gotten a certificate?

or to say he should have won some he should have got the certificate quick. >> we believe it is wrong so mr. buck should have got be appealed. >> so that on the merits you want to say a reasonable jurist whether it was unconstitutional question necker they would conclude the district court decision that he was not prejudiced that that was incorrect and mr. buck got the certificate of appeal ability. >> and reset of course, he should have gotten not because he is right and similarly be did the same thing oddly enough in one of the cases issued here yes he should have got the certificate because he has barris on his side that is essentially what you want us to do? >> yes.

maybe this is what the chief justice was saying that but did the fed circuit just uses the wrong approach for the wrong standard for the of certificate of appealability. >> in this case the analysis ignores the off parts of the case with the certificate of appealability determination the center of the claim has only spend a introduction of racial discrimination with the integrity of the courts as well. the fifth circuit does not engage at all with the critical role of race with the sentence with the integrity of the courts in terms of technology and fidelity in this case. so just to conduct the

certificate of appealability analysis ignored critical facts. >> in this case is argued the court had an improperly denied and that was their position but they did not engage the merits just the standards of the issuance. me go back to that. are you satisfied if we say they use the wrong standard? or are you only satisfied with their wives? >> i sink the fifth circuit odyssey of a bike for the court to say that we win and mr. buck gets a new fare sentencing hearing is my preference. but the court shin say mr. buck is entitled to certificate of appealability because all of the

explanations and justifications presented by texas and the district court are incorrect and unsustainable. >> so let's start with the code of issue. with respect to -- with respect to the:bed issue i read your adversaries to say martina's could not constitute a exceptional circumstance to justify the issuance. that is their position basically it was not retroactive. so first, what does retroactivity argument have to do with anything? what does that apply to? and aren't you making martinez retroactive if we recognize it as the

exceptional recent 24 give a procedural default? second, there is a circuit split on this question and you recognize it is in your brief. you have the three part test that says martinez under certain circumstances can be a reason to find exceptional circumstances. the ninth circuit has the eight part test. they never make it simple. and that says never so we're reducing and? with a short position with respect to the retroactivity question quite. >> with respect to retroactivity the new rules of constitutional law that apply at the trial stage, this is a rule with no applicability that arises zero lead in that habeas

context that with applicability to mr. buck buck, this is the circumstance where if it was properly granted, it mr. buck be in the same position as the position of martinez to argue that as the cause to excuse the defaults of his trial counsel in the first petition for the habeas corpus release. >> this is a very unusual case of what occurred at the penalty stages of the trial. but what concerns me is the implications of your argument for all of the other prisoners that now they want to raise that is procedurally defaulted to

say you should have received from a prior judgment to deny habeas relief and what would prevent a brooding to a the litigation of all of those issues said they effectively would be retroactive? >> there are 3/8 factors first and foremost, it is the express an appeal to racial bias that not only undermines the integrity of his own death sentence but the integrity of the court. second he now faces execution in the death penalty case and faces execution pursuant to that death sentence that is indefensible by racial bias and there is no question that he has consistently and then reluctantly pursued

relief on his claims that make it is case unique from the vast majority. that makes mr. buck from the of vast majority to bring these cases to the federal court. >> so the answer to t6 the interpretation is that it doesn't apply of messages a capital case but that does not draw that distinction. >> of that extraordinary factor the court showed look to those we have identified. is there a risk of injustice to the petitioner? we are facing execution. >> that was a sentence 10 years that was unjust. >> absolutely. the risk of injustice to

repair the integrity of this judicial system more broadly >> sentenced 40 years that not impairs the integrity of the system. i know death is different but did is hard to factor why it is different in the context of particular rules. >> additionally though here, your honor with mr. buck we have the state acknowledge in his case there is no significant fidelity interest in his death sentence. if you add that to the fact his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel added is mildly meritorious. you have a group of factors that this court should provide guidance. >> it did change its mind with the case and i assume there is a reason for that?

isn't just because of the defense counsel. but if we rely on that too much with that discourage prosecutors from offering discretionary confessions be? >> it is a unique when circumstances don't believe it would discourage prosecutors because texas does not actual dates disagree with doc fundamental case that it was compromised by racial bias that undermines the integrity of backcourt r-texas has taken a different position what it should do but it cannot get away from the dock or fax to establish no state has an interest in the death sentence. >> to the extent it is a unique case it doesn't provide a basis to say

anything at all how the fifth circuit approaches certificate of appealability ? that is a unique case that is an on platform to issue a general rule. you said it grants these and a small percentage but if it is so unique power abuse that to articulate general rules? >> it is an extraordinary case for gold because of lower court failed to reach that conclusion, this case underscores the deep need for guidance to the lower courts on the evaluation and assessment what should be considered to determine when that is or is not appropriate. >> was a wrong for the court of appeals to conduct the inquiry in this case when you went to considerable

lengths to determine the claims were invalid? -- valid question they have said it was substantial showing of denial? mike that there might be something there? looking at it more closely? >> certainly the court has made clear time and again the analysis of the merits. >> should our decision be just that? they aired in the merits and issue the certificate of appealability? that is not what you want. >> no. it is not. the fifth circuit and the district court going past the threshold analysis to speak to the merits this court sheehan -- can and should explain those reasons that have been offered were in corrector it -- correct

under those standards and if that certificate of appealability was issued. >> but you don't want us to say that you want us to say there has been a constitutional violation and court of appeals was wrong. >> i would like for the court to say there was a constitutional violation. >> i would have thought your answer would be that you think this is the fifth circuit did so wrong it is the best proof that there is that the court is approaching the coa end of broadway but if that is the wrong results in this case because they are just not understanding what the coa inquiry is all about. >> library absolutely. this court found or was unable to find a taxi and circumstances that they applied that incorrectly for sure. also goes to the need for

guidance to the fifth circuit not only coa but because there is a substantial lack of information available to the evaluation of what is or is not extraordinary. >> so what tests should the fifth circuit applied to consider if those certificates of appeal ability? is irritating to add to the statutory and language by. >> don't have additional language that this court has made clear that threshold application demonstrates the fifth circuit, as the court has noted previously in decisions, has not adhered to the application of the coa standard with the data that we provide baird was amplified to demonstrate that fact. so what you can do again as an example of how far is out of water from the proper

application of the coa standard with the circumstances. >> i defend what the fifth circuit did based on the prejudice prong but there was a lot of evidence with dating to the offense committed and to other conduct by the petitioner that will show that it did not have to rest exclusively on this bizarre expert testimony. >> search of a texas presented evidence in this case. however los backs and circumstances after he was arrested, this court has recognized and aggravated

crimes like this like we talk about here are a rationalized vera of violence with the arbitrary death sentence that was against murray. and those that have very aggravated fax two mr. buck a circumstance not '08 the terrible facts of the crime that the experts can count that risk to put the expert scientific validity to the pernicious idea that mr. buck would be more likely to commit criminal acts of violence because he is black. so that has doubled in light of the aggravating evidence and how is compounded.

>> there has then all lia of talk with respect to questioning at trial of bull's-eyes but how much was it a part of the actual report? that is what the jury asked for. who would consider life without parole for? somebody was considering it previously. somebody wanted to talk about that is what they told them judge. can may talk about life without parole? item in even know what the answer to that was. i should have checked that. you can tell me. but no. today asked for the psychiatric report. so tell me how that changes the calculus quick. >> so the issue of life without parole was

negotiated in the trial they were not given any information of the feasibility. >> but they were told he would be eligible? >> know they were not. they were not given intermission in fact, they fought very hard to make sure the jury did not receive information about parole eligibility it was one of the issues she was concerned was redacted from the report. because he had a reference to that. >> how old was mr. buck at the time question mike a think he was in his 20s. we do know the jury was considering the possibility of a licensed. then we have them asking for the psychiatric report to which contains a sentence that says mr. buck is more likely to commit criminal acts of violence because he

is black men once you have that report after the jury has heard that on the record and cross-examination cross-examination, ultimately be have a situation rather jury is literally making the decision about mr. buck life and death with this in print . we also know this is a jury that was not able to make a quick decision. notwithstanding texas claim that the future danger was overwhelming data not make a quick decision issue would have expected to see if the case was overwhelming. the jury was out today's on the questions that it was presented with. solar during this pivotal time when it was struggling to answer the question of whether or not mr. buck was a like danger in his heyday a piece of paper to validate

evidence from poolsides -- both sides. >> what was the composition of the jury? >> it is not in the records with our research we can only confirm 10 of the jurors were white. redondo about the others. i don't think that matters the race of the jury it was the explicit appeal to racial bias. for over 100 years have said even just one is impossible to not to ring the bell because in this case it spoke to that of oppression is mr. buck would be executed because it was the prerequisite for a death sentence. of the jury did not find future danger then mr. buck could not be executed. this puts the of some

heavily on the evidence of the deaf scale. in particular with the evidence in this case. as i said texas presented three categories of evidence , the crime, lack of remorse, prior domestic violence. but nothing presented spoke to the question of whether or not mr. buck would be likely to commit criminal acts of violence if you was sentenced to life in prison. they did not present any evidence on that. mr. buck on the other hand, presented dr. lawrence hughes spoke powerfully teetwo the question if mr. buck would commit criminal acts of violence if he were in prison which is the only alternative to the death sentence the jury was presented with. >> use said the evidence of his dangerousness was limited with those he had a romantic tradition ship. but he killed at least two

people with whom he did not have a romantic relationship >> no. this stepsister part. >> she survived. >> she was shot. >> absolutely. question. he shot her and that was in the one sequence of events where enterprises out of their relationship with his ex-girlfriend. however dr. lawrence presents evidence that the record is that mr. buck has a positive institutional adjustment history berger previously when he was incarcerated was held in and among security that all crimes of violence that took place in the department of corrections were committed by people that had gained involvement and there was not here. so the testimony talks about the limitations of the texas

case for future dangerousness they say that here redo have evidence that goes beyond what texas has presented and the only evidence is that he will be dangerous and that context perhaps if that establishes you will be dangerous matter where he is. i'd like to reserve the remainder of the time for rebuttal. >> thank you counsel. >> mr. chief justice said it may please the court, a beard here today defending the death sentence because the petitioner murder the mother in front of her children put the gun to the chest of the stepsister and shot her and murdered another man. >> the fax are similarly heinous where the state

determined nonetheless there was a risk to be sentenced to death because of their race. i don't understand understand, understand the procedural differences but i don't understand why that ultimate conclusion does not apply here as well? >> regardless of the evidence was admitted by dash prosecution or defense defense, it seems the same concern. >> there is a key distinction of why a prosecuting authority is introducing evidence of race as danger that is the equivalent of using race as the aggravated. you do not inject race into the proceeding. >> budding cross-examination proximity put into context the prosecutor did not go beyond the scope of direct to see that expert report for the first time that day

and reviewed over the lunch hour this is 154 and 165 and with all the various factors that was considered in the testimony but it did not go beyond what was solicited upon direct to highlight a the example in contrast the prosecutor mentioned race for times and inclosing said pull back i went down all of the indicators they did not want to talk about those but i did and i forced the issue . mail, a hispanic. >> but the petitioners own council introduces this so with his representation? quite good that make us a difference that the petitioner council can introduce the evidence?

that should not have come in and and what counsel would put that kind of evidence before a jury? what competent counsel would put that evidence before a jury greg. >> your not defending the defense council's actions but the nature is six the amendment that the court also refused with prejudice in the context of a prosecutor offering testimony as the aggravate areas equal protection of due process violation. the nature of that evidence would be significantly higher in a prejudicial as the state uses that as the aggravate her. >> it doesn't matter who uses race they don't care if this a racial challenge we say neither shared use raisin a negative way

against defendant. so why is that different here and why is that okay or not okay for the prosecutor to introduce the likelihood of a person to be dangerous on the basis of race alone? but for the defense attorney blacks. >> isn't okay going to the level of prejudice. >> attaches the reasonable possibility because texas says if one does not agree then in acid ab snapple possibility that wanderer wanderer, even if they sent the note to say is that possible to do life without parole, could have been convinced to exercise mercy

f race was not used? can you answer that question absolutely not? at least in one of the cases of man poured gasoline on a woman and watched her die. we had a nation that was modified. shocked and complete the traumatized by watching popeye it burned to death. so why is that any less? . .

the state doesn't have to rule out -- >> reasonable probability is the actual language. >> harrington verse richter said, quote, the likelihood of a different result should be not just substantive but has to be reasonable. if can dress the jury deliberation, the jury deliberated for two days but three hours. a record 19-18 to 1919. on the second day the jury asked to see the crime scene video. ja210-a, record 35956 and report 63-33 so if the court were to look at the circumstances of the jury's deliberations and aisle not sure if that's necessary to do dirks the interest to be drawn is the final 55 minutes. it was looking at the crime scene video. >> i'm not sure how the

quickness of the determines helps you at all. one response would be they had this evident that he was by virtue of his race likely to be dangerous, so they didn't spend that much time on it. >> the argument here is under the circumstances when they were focused on the crime scene video, that would have been what the jury was -- >> we're not in the jury room. we know to prosecutor asked the expert witness, is it correct that the race factor, black, increases the future dangerousness? for various complicated reasons, and he says, yes. so, that seems -- i mean, you can't prove that was the key factor but could have been a substantial factor, and texas in six cases says this is totally wrong and now in this seventh case you're taking the opposite decision, and i have to admit what the chief justice seemed, don't understand the reason, it seems to me it prove this

arbitrariness of what is going on. regardless, the issue here is, is there some good reason why this person shouldn't have been able to re-open his case. that is the question. what's the reason? after all, we later decided these other cased. martinez. his circumstances seemed to fit martinez pretty much like a glove. the state certainly doesn't have a strong interest anymore than other cases, not obvious to me, some kind of reliance so he has a case where martinez seems to apply. he couldn't even -- he was diligent. diligent. not much to -- not too much reliance on the other side. and seems to meet martinez's criteria for hearing the issue. if that, why doesn't that make it extraordinary enough to re-open under rule 60b? that is the question in the

case. >> for two ropes and both are controlled by gonsalez vs. crosby. the first is the changed circumstance was in 2006 is that martinez intervening a change in the law. the second there was a lack of diligence in purr -- pursuing the came. the ineffective assistance claim was not raised in the first 60b motion. >> all this took place after this court decided martinez intervenor. >> in the context of the second 60b motion. >> you listed a whole bunch of things in which he could have done. did those take place or not? after we decided our case? if some of. the did, which? >> the federal happious petition asks for a coa and the first 60b motion were before martinez but

in ganz gonzales vs. cross by -- >> he did exactly whatout specked item do, given that coleman was on looks. would have been improper for him to ask for the relief you're know suggesting he should have been asked. it would hell before futile will coleman on the books. >> the same would be under gonzalez divorce crosby. the stat united states of limitations would have run. >> isn't this substantially different than gonzalez? wasn't it importance in gonzalez what the nature of the error was? in gonzalez what the court said the error is common place, lawyers misjudge time limits all the time. the one thing about this error it's not commonplace. even the two people who called the catano as defense witnesses never themselves raised race as a cause -- as a reason for

future dangerousness. only this attorney, who has been disciplined repeatedly for his malfeasance in representing clients, who one newspaper said, if you want to ensure a death penalty, hire this lawyer. in that situation, isn't this that rare case that gonzalez talked about? >> this is certainly an unusual case. and the standard for extraordinary circumstances in this post tour is not simply would an appellate judge in the first instance conclude that but did the district accurate abuse its discretion in declining to considered the circumstances. >> gonzalez vs. crosby, my understanding, involved a change in the statute of limitations. is that right? >> correct. >> as soon as i say those words i'm confused. i mean, all kinds of statues of

limp additions and this is one of them. the court said he didn't pursue the change diligently, and besides it wasn't that big a deal, and not every interpretation of federal statute setting habeas requirements caused re-opening. cases long since final the change was not a extraordinary and it was because in part of petitioner's lack of diligence in pursuing it. a whole list of reasons there i don't think one of them applies here. which one applies here. >> insofar as the extraordinary circumstances analysis under 60b is being performed, believe the fifth circuit was create in that hate we've to to be an extraordinary circumstance justifying relief from the judgment and when the facts of the case have existed for over 20 years, there would be nothing new about raising that claim in a second rule 60b motion to re-open the judge. that is further than gonzalez

verse crosby which is a 60b motion. this is the second 60b motion. >> i understand your arguments on the merits but do they apply equally to certificate of appealability? you argue that you should prevail on the merits but the question on a certificate of appealability is whether there's been a substantial showing of denial of the constitutional right. assuming you haven't already seen the analysis on the merits and you're looking at this question for the first time before going through this analysis, wouldn't it seem pretty straightforward to say, okay, maybe he is right, marsh he is wrong, but at least he made a substantial showing? let's give hem the certificate of appeal and then go through the normal procedures of the merits. >> clear lay harder standard for us on the certificate of palibility stand. but you would be asking would reasonable jurists debate whether the district court abused miss discretion in defining circumstances. >> that gets tougher and

tougher. renal sure -- reasonable juris debate an abuse of discretion is a broad range. it seems to me, yes, it's a disstandard but quite a different standard, and the broader question here is whether the fifth circuit applied the wrong standard on the certificate of appealability and seems to me if you're going to say particularly when you're reviewing an abuse of discretion standard, that you're going to be able to say, there's nothing substantial here. >> i think this would be a difficult case to infer anything widespread from the fifth circumstance's practice just to put context into the process allow heeder. the petitioner filed a 70 page opening brief. the state filed a 35 page reply

brief and the -- this is the fifth time the circuit had seen this case. >> my question kind of cuts the other way. i'm saying they go through -- yes, you make the point there was substantial amount of process and long consideration, a lot of briefing. i would have thought the purpose of a certificate of appealability would be to make the decision to move forward without all that elaborate process. >> well, the fifth circuit on occasion hears oral argument in considering whether to grant a coa in the capital posture insofar as the court would provide or believe that is not the type of process that should be afforded the coa stage in congruent with edpa. >> grant the cooa? >> the first circuit on occasion -- page 55 and 51 of our responsible depth's brief -- will hear oral argument -- >> some of the statistics the petitioner have pointed us to in

capital cases, coi is denied in 60% of the fifth certificate case as compared to six percent of 11 circuit cases. two roughly similar circuits where coas are denied in capital cases ten times more in the fifth circuit? suggests one circuit is doing something wrong. >> the court said that the coa should serve agate keeping fungs and the court noted that death is different and the fifth circuit is providing substantial process. now, insofar as, though, as this court were to -- if it were going conclude in this case that coa should have issued, any such decision i think would be limited to the unique facts of this case. and i don't think there's anything that could be drawn about the fifth circuit's practice in denying or granting coas, particularly in the capital posture when substantial process is being afforded. this is not a situation where the fifth circuit is simply

ignoring indications and claims. quite the opposite. >> is it your suggestion that they deny more because they've taken a more searching look at the marries -- merits than the other circuits. >> insofar as statistics could be shown there is in fact a different denial and grant rate, i think the level of process that the fifth circuit is receiving and the quantum of argue. may be going to those statistics because the fifth circuit errings not ignoring these claims, and even here -- >> this is the whole point really. they're not supposed to be doing what you were to do when you decide an appeal. they actually don't have jurisdiction to decide the appeal. they're supposed to be performing a gatekeeping function, not deciding the merits of the case. >> i don't think what the fifth circuit did here was decide the merits. it correctly articulated the coa standard, and it examined the 11 facts that pet anywhere alleged that a -- petitioner alleged on

the ruling of the 60b motion. five of those were essentially the underlying inning effective asince stance claim -- >> it doesn't say anything to the fifth circuit that three state court judges, two of their colleagues on the fifth circuit, two justices of this court, have said or found mr. buck's case debatable? that's a standard. it's debatable. they don't pause and say, you know, people are -- have some basis for an argument here. it's not frivolous. this is a serious question. >> and the fifth circuit took these arguments seriously and this is -- >> that's not the issue. they're supposed to decide whether to grant the coa or not on whether the questions are serious or not. debatable. not decide the merits.

know it can appear a fine line in some situations, but how do you justify saying that this is not debatable? >> here the issue would be could reasonable jurists debate the abuse of discretion in typing extraordinary circumstances and while the reasonable sureis standard is lower, that's bammed against the more differential abuse of circumstances standard and the heightened extraordinary circumstances standard which this court knosted will rare by be met in a habeas process. the court found extraordinary circumstances. when counsel holy abandon an official or a prison guards to a petitioner tiling a habeas petition. those are not the only -- >> were there extraordinary circumstances in the other cases? in the other five cases?

>> in the other five cases in which the state confessed error? >> yes. >> well, we would admit that since the prosecution was the one that was eliciting the race-based testimony, that would good to a due process and equal protection violation and that would be an extraordinary circumstance do you said because it's more prejudicial when the prosecution introduce this? that's your basic theory? >> the state using it as an aggravator. >> that makes more prejudicial. that's your theory. >> both points. the -- >> i don't understand -- both points. tell me what the other point. i updon't understand that point. it seems more prejudicial when the defense attorney uses it. i mean, prosecution -- the jury is sitting there and realizes that the prosecution has an interest in convicting a person and then getting a sentence that the prosecution wants, so everything is discounted a little bit but when the defendant's own lawyer

introduces this, the jury is going to say, well, must be true. even the defendant's lawyer thinks this i true. so, who am i to argue with that? it seems wildly more prejudicial to me when the defense attorney introduces that. >> except it's not the case here that ky ha noh was only testifying about face. he his ultimate conclusion and multiple other aspects aspects i testimony were favorable to petitioner. in that circumstance, the prejudice would not be nearly as great as when the state is injecting race into a proceeding. >> i didn't think your primary argument had to do with the relative prejudice of having it done by the prosecutor and the defense attorney. thought your argument was that the state of texas feel as certain -- feels a special responsibility when one of its employees engages in this misconduct, and when the

evidence is introduced by the defendant's attorney, it's an ineeffective assistance of counsel question and has to be ajude did under the strickland test. >> that's absolutely correct. when you look at the aggravating evidence of executing a mother in from of their children and saying he mother got what the deserved, unquote, and when we put in evidence from the ex-girlfriend, a j127a of repeatedly beating her and threatening her with a gun, all of those go to whether there would in fact be prejudice under the sixth amendment -- >> the legal question here is whether this ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which has never been heard by any court, is a strong one, and a strong one including that the ineffective assistance here is likely to be prejudicial, which seems as though it's more -- it's far more likely to be prejudicial when the defense

counsel doesn't. >> justice kagan, when the state is injecting race into a proceedings, it's using it as an aggravator -- >> states use whatever aggravators it has has at hand. people don't expect the state to do something as improper as this but people who understand that not everything that the prosecution says about a defendant -- that people -- that jurors should think about those claims seriously because prosecution has interests of itself open, but the defense counsel's interests are supposed to be with the defendant. i'm just repeating myself. if the defense counsel does it, who the juror explain? >> this court i don't believe has ever recognized a situation in which a defense counsel's act could give rise to structural error or per se prejudice, and any such rule would invite gamesmanship. of course the prejudice analysis can still be done but to say it

would be per se prejudicial. i would have to be balanced guess the aggravating evidence and in the context of kihan testifying that there would be an unlikely effect of being a future danger. >> what is the relationship between the ruling on principle diswith respect to ineffective assistance and the 60b analysis. do you agree with we disagree with your submission on prejudice under strickland, the 60b analysis kind of falls apart? the underclaim would be extraordinary under 60b? >> it is a factor that could be considered in doing the extraordinary circumstances analysis, because if there were extraordinary circumstances that were going to justifying really from the judgment, that would be a factor in totality of the circumstances they court could consider in doing that analysis. >> if there are no further

questions we ask the court to affirm the judgment of this circuit. >> thank you, counsel. miss swarns, you have four minutes remaining. >> this court has long recognized that the integrity of the courts require unceasing effort to eradicate racial prejudice from the criminal justice system. that commitment is as urgent today as any in time in our nation's hoyt. duane buck's case requires meaningful federal review of this climb that this trial counsel knowingly introduced an expert opinion that he was more likely to commit criminal acts of violence in the future. a certificate of appealability should certainly issue. with respect to texas' argumented want to begin by making clear first of all this court in georgia versus mccolumn, that the equal protection concerns that are. plicated be the introduction of

race into the criminal justice system constitutely are triggered with defense counsel's conduct and certainly that was situation where defense counsel exercised peremptory challenges based on race, and in that circumstance that was actually an exercise of perimeter roy challenge -- peremptory challenges to benefit the death, using a race-based challenge. here we have trial coup making an inexplicable decision to introduce race. this is certainly worse and more aggravating for mr. buck. would also like to just be career that the prosecution's reliance on dr. kihanos testimony here was real. this wasn't a circumstance where the prosecutor was required to follow up on the doctor's opinion and reiterated on cross, cross-examination and then go further and argue in closing that the jury should rely on the

door to find mr. buck likely to commit criminal acts of violence and further argue the jury should disregard the packet that conflict if with the finding of future dangerousness. when texas did its review of death row after it conceded error, it looked through all of the cases on death row to see what else was contaminated by the doctor's racist criminal violence magic. and the other case ised like at and ruled out was the anthony graves case which demonstrates the options available to this mooter under these circumstances. in the anthony graves case the doctor was called as a defense witness just like he was here. in the anthony graves case the defense elicited the race as criminal violence opinion on direct examination just as here. but the difference is in the graves case, the prosecutor did not reiterate it on direct examination and then in closing,

argued that the jury should disregard the doctor's opinion. this prosecutor here absolutely capitalized on trial counsel's error. there is just no question about that. they made a choice that they could have gone the graves route but this prosecutor chose to go through the door that was opened by trial counsel. and rely on the doctor's racist criminal violence opinion. counsel for texas also notes that the last note that the jury sent out was a request to review the crime scene video, which is absolutely true. but it means that the last two notes that this jury looked at -- two things they asked for was the experts report so we now have the vase race and then the crime. this is exactly the circumstance that this court addressed in turner, right? you have the facts of the crime that trigger this racialized fear of violence and rates the real risk of an arbitrary

defense -- and so that further -- is further evidence of prejudice to mr. buck. last issue would just be clear that when mr. buck litigated his first 60b motion, coleman stood as unqualified bar. there was no. opportunity before martinez was announced for him to argue. thank you. >> thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> republican vice presidential nominee mike pence held a rally in north carolina today, where he talked about last night's debate. >> you know, it takes a big man to know when he is wrong. accomplish to admit it. and to have the humility to apologize, and be transparent and be vulnerable with people. and donald trump last night

showed that he is a big man. [applause] and i was on television this morning on msnbc -- [booing] i think it was that one itch would was on a few. somebody asked me by my faith. the fact that i say i'm a christian and in the wake of the last few days what i made of everything. and i welcomed the opportunity. other than that woman standing next to me, my wonderful wife, karen, the most important decision in my life was when i made a decision for christ in 1978. made all the difference. [applause] i was happy to explain on that television program that i'm a believer. and my faith informs me we're to hold up a godly standard, and

we're to aspire to live godly lives but also informs me we all fall short. we all fall short of the glory of god. there's no one righteous. other than the one. as i said last weekend, i don't condone what was said, and i spoke out against it. but the other part of my faith is i believe in grace. i've received it. i believe in it. i believe in forgiveness. and we're called to forgive as we have been forgiven and last night my running mate showed the american people what is in his heart. he showed humility. to the american people. and then he fought back and turned the focus to the choice that we face, and i'm proud to stand with donald trump. [cheering]

>> watch c-span lazy live coverage of the third debate between hillary clinton and trump on wednesday, october 19th. our live debate preview from the university of nevada laughings -- las vegas starts at 7:30 p.m. the the debate is at 9:00 p.m. eastern. stay with us following the debate for viewer reaction including your calls, tweets twd facebook postings and watch the debate live oar on demand using your desk desk top phone or tablet at c-span.org. over the summer, supreme court justice anthony kennedy spoke at the nine inch circuit court of appeals judicial conference in big sky, montana, and talked about how the supreme court decided cases, the vacancy on the high court after the

death of antonin scalia, and his thoughts ton the broadway show, "hamilton. modify this is half an hour. >> thank you. so i'd like to follow up on the civics theme. i know you feel that an understanding of civics is very important for americans, and especially for there is -- the younger generation, and i understand that recently you had an opportunity to go see "hamilton," and i wonder what was your reaction to that and do you think that is a way we can reach younger americans and get them interested in our history in civics. >> the answer to the question is, yes. is this on? can you hear? >> no. >> i it doesn't sound to me like it's on. >> i could -- hello? are we on now? >> yes. >> okay. >> "hamilton" was fascinating.

we were able to get tickets and some of my grandchildren in new york were going to be with us, and we were there for the night before, and they said, papa, this is in rap. and they saw this look of horror on my face. and they said, now, wait a minute. this whole idea of ranch its that it's designed for an argument and this is an argument between primarily hamilton and jefferson. and also rap has a tremendous amount of words. so you can tell a story. so the first act is an hour 40 minutes, and it's dynamic. washington is a distinguished stately, elegant, impressive man. he is a black man. others that are hispanics people, and actors. portray hamilton and jefferson,

which is to show that the constitutional is for we, the people. and they're young people and they're active and having fun. i have to be careful about talking about old guys but the framers were not a lot of old guys. they were young and dynamic and the first hour and 40 minutes i was concerned about the actors not needing voice rest and i also needed time just to absorb this. so it was fun and afterwards a couple times i met mr. luis miranda, he wrote the script and the music and plays the principle role, and i said thank you for bridging two generation gaps, one between our time and the founding and the other between myself and my grandchildren. and he later tweet that and we talked about that. but we have the civics meeting with the winners of the civic

award earlier today and i point out, a couple years ago the young high school lawyer who lives across the street from us came over and side i'm almost finished with all my credits as a certainly. all i have left is civics and driver's ed. and civics is -- isn't something where you learn it for a couple weeks in high school. it's who we are. there, the americans define themselves by their constitution. that what creates us. and this is our heritage. and you must know our heritage, and hamilton is a splendid way to know our heritage. i have what they call a bypass their rhythm living in a bypass universe. don't go to amazon or macyy's or walmart anymore you go to amazon and you deposit need to buy a