defense counsel was ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress mr coleman statements taken in violation of his miranda rights now in this case mr coleman exercised his constitutional right not to testify at trial but because no motion to suppress has was ever filed mr coleman was essentially forced to testify against him self in clear violation of miranda and even worse his inadmissible statements comprise the majority of the state's case which consisted of just one live witness who himself i hear there are two sets of statements at play and this court to test a look at the record to see whether there is any information in the record that would lead to the conclusion that the most to suppress statements would have been granted and your honors this court need look no farther than the first minute after mr coleman's formal rights to make that determination in state's exhibit two which was the video of the traffic stop at twenty eight at the twenty second minute twenty second second that this was just not one statement that was a minute against him the videos comprise the majority of the state's case here the video first video was thirty nine minutes and three seconds the second video which was taken at during the twenty minute mandatory observation period before the press wiser was supposed to be administered that video that was entered and showed to the jury was forty six minutes and twelve seconds together that was approximately one testimony twenty pages of cross examination and just one question on redirect examination so in comparison also hawses live testimony pales in comparison to the videos which comprise the majority of the substance of the state's case not these any this tainted statements the word minute against mr coleman caused significant precipice so to address directly on his question the question here is whether reasonable proper but there's a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different now it's not removing these statements and seeing whether the or the remainder of the evidence was sufficient to sustain this conviction the court needs to look at how the statement of fact of the birth and whether the jury would have come with the same for now these statements because they were so significant and comprised majority of the state's case it discredited mr coleman who did not even testify now having been on the stand of the jury could have made his credibility determinations on their own based on his demeanor there and his testimony that's i but these that tainted statements were going against him he should never have dead but the jury was able to make these credibility determinations based on those statements and the videos further this state introduced these statements three times well i introduced them twice in evidence and referred to them repeatedly in closing arguments so first introduced the statements through officer hall says testimony then lay the one and a half hours of video for the jury and then finally during closing arguments the state repeatedly referred to the statements but you can do that first statement that i mentioned earlier the one where he says i don't have no drugs man i don't song or drugs now this statement alone was the only evidence that the state below a referred to to allow the jury to infer knowledge which is a necessary part of it for them it's a convicted mr coleman of possession of a controlled perceptions of mr coleman allowed to make credibility determinations by him untrustworthy so we don't know whether the jury would have made the requisite findings on the dui charges now why this is important here is  constitutionally effective defense counsel has to raise constitutional violations and here constitutional violation was the majority of the state's case and counsel did not raise any of those issues so  trial strategy had to be reasonable or sound and here it was neither the state argues that counsel referred to these videos and needed these videos as part of the evidence rise the majority of the state's case so we're simply asking this court to find that mr quinn was right so the back to the sense of counsel was violated so that he may have an opportunity to raise the miranda violation for the first time we has at this do not know what happened between the time of his arrest and the time he was placed in the docs lies room waiting to take the breathalyzer test as even defend admits in this brief it's it's perfectly possible that at some point he was mirandized if in there but in the absence of that on the record it's it's this court as is unable to determine the issue of whether counsel is ineffective for failing to file a motion to suppress with regard to the second video there may have been no opportunity no possibility of filing one if in you've been mirandized either in the car when you arrived at the police station at some point prior to the video in that room being turned on which was the twenty minute wait period for the breath of life now there's a gap in time it's not moralized no questions no record was developed as to it it would be if this case if the defendant raised this issue in the collateral proceeding and proceed to an evidentiary hearing on that basis so for those two reasons that you feel that the record is inadequate to review the issue at this point should the court find the record is adequate then the people would submit that it was a question of strategy here defense counsel i was able to get the defendant's statements and rather than characterizing them as tainted people would characterize  chose not to object or not to do most of the suppress and the the videotape statements were in the prosecutor is free to argue inferences from all the evidence and did argue influences from all the evidence but even without that evidence there's no reasonable probability that the outcome of the ver the record is adequate there is sufficient information in the record for the court to make the terminations that it can make here is that a motion to suppress would have been granted at least in part and we or remain silent without knowing the intended or consequences and here mr coleman said i don't do drugs and i don't do drugs man i don't sell drugs on the face that's exculpatory but we know that the prosecution used these overwhelming evidence in support of mr holmes conviction aside from the scene that statements now i'd like to remind this court that the question now is not whether there is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction but whether we are confident that the journey would have reached the same verdict without these tainted statements now where these tapes and statements comprise the majority of the state's case there is no guarantee that the jury could have formed that same verdict now miller those court stated that effective counsel raises constitutional violations and where those violations comprise the majority of evidence against a defendant that cannot say that cannot be that cannot support reasonable counsel's decisions and here because counsel was ineffective because his strategy was not sound the strategy was not reasonable that strategy cannot save him from being