mr. lundey? if mr. lundey says i didn't make that list, it has to be one of the two prosecutors. >> one of the two prosecutors and one was not there on the day the jury was struck, on mr. lanier was. but if that's not mr. lanier's thought process of the definite no list -- i don't see that gets you to clear error in the striking of mr. hood or miss garrett. >> seems an out and out false statement. the reason was given -- one of the reasons for garrett being struck is that her cousin was arrested. then the prosecutor doesn't know that at the time of the voir dire. he doesn't know until after the voir dire. that the cousin was arrested how could it possibly be a rope at the time of the voir dire. >> don't think the record bears that out if the highlighted notes that petitioner wants to say these were used during voir dire, these were used during the strike, in those notes --ing this is that joint appendix page 256 -- angela is written beside miss garrett's name in mr. lundey's notes where he said he wrote

mr. lundey? if mr. lundey says i didn't make that list, it has to be one of the two prosecutors. >> one of the two prosecutors and one was not there on the day the jury was struck, on mr. lanier was. but if that's not mr. lanier's thought process of the definite no list -- i don't see that gets you to clear error in the striking of mr. hood or miss garrett. >> seems an out and out false statement. the reason was given -- one of the reasons for garrett being struck is that her cousin was arrested. then the prosecutor doesn't know that at the time of the voir dire. he doesn't know until after the voir dire. that the cousin was arrested how could it possibly be a rope at the time of the voir dire. >> don't think the record bears that out if the highlighted notes that petitioner wants to say these were used during voir dire, these were used during the strike, in those notes --ing this is that joint appendix page 256 -- angela is written beside miss garrett's name in mr. lundey's notes where he said he wrote