on the right to challenge for cause and a transcript of the jury selection proceedings. In the submitted document, Chief Justice Esson found evidence that supported the assertion that "Native people have been and continue to be historically the objects of prejudice and bias which, in some respects, have become more overt and more widespread in recent years due to tensions. created by developments in areas such as territorial claims and fishing rights. , Chief Justice Esson believed that even if a juror had a bias towards a person of Indigenous descent, it would not lead to bias because he would put it aside during the trial and focus solely on the facts. He concluded his decision with a cost-benefit analysis in which he said that "permitting challenges for cause on the basis of racial bias in the community would far outweigh the putative benefit of supposedly fairer trials." Chief Justice Esson's final conclusion is flawed because he ignores the cold, hard facts and places too much confidence in potential jurors. In any given situation, a person's racial bias will not go away just because they are in a courtroom. A person's discriminatory thoughts are deeply ingrained, so the challenge for cause was necessary in order to eliminate bias from the trial and prevent Williams from receiving an unfair sentence.