ms. garrett, they wanted ms. garrett. that's what it'll trial court and the trial court relied upon that. a denying that batson motion, that they showed their openness to having -- mediscare was on the definite no list or choose what each of the strike lives. ms. garrett was never anyone to be on this jury. but they represented for the court that because another african-american, shirley powell come was excused for cause or five african-americans in the start of the committee to start the jury but once said, turns i know someone in the family. she was asked used for cause and the prosecutor said, implied clearly that had it not been for that, that extra strike, that ms. garrett would have of that. at the same time, they are still arguing this both ways that they both wanted her into the water, they give 11 reasons for why ms. garrett would not be a good juror, that she is impudent and she does respect the court. but those things i would submit are not really valid in terms of the reasons, because the reasons they gave her

ms. garrett and martha duncan who were both teachers aides. they were at schools in the same neighborhood. ms. duncan had kindergarten atdents that ms. garrett had her program. , they also said -- -- herduncan lived school was 250 yards away and she lived a half-mile from the school. both of them answered that they were not familiar with the area where the victim lived or it some more questions after those answers would have provided a difference. is treated. garrett as a liar and his duncan is excepted and serves as a juror in this case. there are other examples. with mr. hood particularly. about his child that was arrested. he went off to the navy and searches country honorably and came back. >> thank you counsel. case is submitted. >> on the next washington journal, two former indiana representatives talk about campaign 2016. issue one talks about his article in political magazine looking at the influence of one added 58 families on the political system. david mcintosh, president of the club for growth on conservatives and campaign 2016. was

ms. garrett and martha duncan who were both teachers aides. they were at schools in the same neighborhood. ms. duncan had kindergarten atdents that ms. garrett had her program. , they also said -- -- herduncan lived school was 250 yards away and she lived a half-mile from the school. both of them answered that they were not familiar with the area where the victim lived or it some more questions after those answers would have provided a difference. is treated. garrett as a liar and his duncan is excepted and serves as a juror in this case. there are other examples. with mr. hood particularly. about his child that was arrested. he went off to the navy and searches country honorably and came back. >> >> c-span fans "landmark cases," a guide to the landmark cases series which explores 12 historic supreme court decisions , including mowbray versus madison, round versus the board of education, miranda versus arizona, and roe versus wade. features introductions, background, highlights, in the impact of each case. "landmark cases" is available for $8.9

ms. garrett's name. in mr. y's notes where he said he wrote down things he knew prior to strikes, prior to voir dire of what he knew about individual jurors, he wrote down as to marilyn garrett "angela garrett" a cousin and then mr. linear testify -- >> didn't the habeas court -- i'm sorry. >> proceed. >> didn't the habeas court accept he didn't know at the time of trial? he just knew that lundy didn't want her? >> what the -- the habeas court actually credited the fact that mr. lundy had advised trial counsel that angela garrett should be struck. >> but that was his explanation for why the prosecutor didn't know about the prior arrest, correct? >> no, i think the state habeas court credited that as one of the facts of the strike. >> that mr. lundy didn't want her. >> excuse me, i'm -- >> that mr. lundy didn't want her. he never credited or never said that he knew about the arrest. >> actually, mr. linear testified twice, though, that he was aware at the time of jury selection that he knew about -- >> mr. lundy

ms. garrett be one of the jurors. with a big doubt still remaining. those are the notes.ay anything else? cnn legal analyst jeffrey toobin is here. and p you are getting notes like that in a challenge, it is possible that the supreme court justices could say it is a abuse, and we have to do away with the pre-emptory challenges to not have to say why you struck a jury. >> yes, and if the only reason that you threw people out if they were biased in some way, and peremptory challenges, you don't have to give a reason, but get rid of people, and some people believe it would be better to get rid of all of them. i don't believe that the supreme court is part of that, because pre-emptory challenges are part of the law for decades and decades and prosecutors be by and large want to keep them. >> you can challenge it in court, court, and it is not a total secrecy, because if you have enough evidence to go after the attorneys, you can mount something called a batson challenge, and say, give me your reason for why you did that. >> that is why when it was a pros prosecutor, we were i

ms. waters: thank you, mr. chairman. we must realize that what mr. garrett just shared with you is certainly not what the cfpb has done. as a matter of fact, what the cfpb has done, it is said that lender, you cannot say that i will take x amount of percentage of interest, will i take 5%, 10% interest, and dealer you can mark it up another 3%, 4%, 5%. it's not exactly shared with you what happens with the cfpb. i now yield three minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, a member of the financial services committee, mr. ellison. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota is recognized for three minutes. mr. ellison: i want to thank the gentlelady for the time. the ranking member has been an outstanding advocate for american consumers and i thank her. i rise today to ask you to vote no on this piece of legislation and to alert the american people of another attempt to make it easier to overcharge you when you make a purchase. today's threat to americans' wallets occurs when you try to buy car. most people need to take out a loan to buy a car or truck. they frequen