In Newbury v. State, 135 S.W.3d 22, 30 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004), the court clarified the meaning of the language in article 35.16(a)(10) that states if the potential juror "answers in the affirmative" that he has a conclusion so established in his mind that it will influence his verdict, then "he shall be discharged without further interrogation by either party or the court." 135 S.W.3d at 30. The court held that this language did not prevent the trial court or counsel from accurately explaining the law to potential jurors, but that it was only "meant to prevent rehabilitation of a potential jury member who has clearly shown himself to be impartial, given an accurate understanding of the law and his obligations under it." Id.