made your point the court will graciously accept me please the court my name is howard pincus from the federal public defender and represent shane young by the time he was interrogated by special agent brown mr young had already admitted possessing three point five grams of methamphetamine the agent promised mr young that any truthful statements he made about his drug activity would reduce the time he would serve in federal prison th for no cost disclosure and the mr young could only be better off by admitting his involvement in drug activity made his statements involuntary this court should vacate the district court suppression order order the statement suppressed at further proceedings the district court recognized mr young in fact made that the agent in fact made a promise of leniency the agent told mr young that he had spoken to the judge the judge was charges as either a five year case two as but is there any evidence of that or what is your position on that well the judge found that the judge didn't actually resolve that but he said it regardless what he clearly said was the judge and you have to look at if mr young's point of view and mr young who had no prior experience in the federal system would take it as a promise that he had spoken to the judge and that's clearly what the agent said whatever was in his mind was not what he said to mr young and in fact he said judge several times and he also said prosecutor nother time so in context is very clear that he was speaking about what the judge had agreed to regardless of what he may have meant to say that we have to look at what dury the statements during the interrogation and of course that just shows how false what the aged told him was the agent said this was a five to ten year case it wasn't under any reading unless the three five grams was just simple possession otherwise mr young was a career offender looking at least one hundred and fifty one months and as it played out with a higher amount of methamphetamine one hundred and eighty eight months at a minimum after acceptance confessions and then there are confessions this one what he admitted was the extra amount to mean that which was what the what the agent really wanted to admit to without that it was just a three point five grams of meth it could have been mr young repeatedly said or what he said during the interrogation was this isn't a dope dealers front yard i know why everybody's trying to get me to admit to it they tried to get him to admit to it at the state interrogation just before a day or two before the federal interrogation it was clearly the focus what mr special agent brown want him to admit to he gave as an example of only to the information something that could only benefit mr young  that what how the case would have played out without these statements we have to look at what these statements were involuntary and mr mr young's assume we agree with you what relief  further proceedings mr young can decide whether to withdraw his guilty plea and if he does then the case would proceed without the statements about the ninety four grams and all of the other statements that mr young men in which case he would not get credit  suppression motion seeking to have those statements suppressed and seeking to go to trial only with what the government what the the evidence that was found in new york but he shouldn't be namely one judge philips  and in fact what the prior state interrogation shows is just how this is the agents promises here is false promises coerced the statements out of mr yob when without the prior without the prior promises promises of leniency at the state interrogation mr young as soon as he was asked about the ninety four grams was told it was on dash cam said no and i don't want to speak about it any more here this promise of leniency confronted him about it and mr young in an anguished state as you can see very clearly from the video eventually confessing all his right after the his  as allowing them to look at his telephone well that was much later in the interrogation after he had already confessed to not only the ninety four gram but other drug activity decisively and because he'd already confessed to that you would think that he would give everything up but he didn't he said you can't look at my telephone and he also in the interview before he acknowledged the ninety three grams mused to himself maybe he should have an attorney there all of them silence he knew that he could have an attorney there he did nobody also was under the he had been repeatedly promised that nothing's going to hurt you and the fact that he he was may have had some residual doubt about whether the age would follow through on the promise doesn't mean that the promises didn't have the effect no they had the effect from what the prior terror geisha looked like we know they had the effect because he spoke right after that and in fact mr young as it turned out had good reason to doubt the promises of the agent because the agent didn't follow through on them they were false promises never never going to be followed through on asked for the phone a couple of points about that st of all a phone and well we said in the briefing that at that point there was discussion about the broader relief that mr young wanted not going to prison at all that actually came later in the interrogation so i apologize for that the we also indicated that it was about the statements only went you may have he may have thought they went to a drug activity on the th and fact agent's promise was clear as to extending to any drug involvement by mr young but there's good reason why mr young might not want the agents to rummage through his phone as a supreme court recognized and riley cell phones these days contain a vast trove of information many of it very personal intimate we don't know what was on the phone he may have there may have been other activity didn't want the agents to know about because he was embarrassed because he feared what consequences could have for him he was very forthright throughout the interrogation as you can see about his involvement and speaking with the agents answering all their questions the government can only come up with two examples to the contrary one being about the phone the other being about when he was asked who do you sell to other than that he was very forthright with the agents and the fact that he didn't want the agents to look through his phone with all of the information that could be on the phone doesn't tell us anything about whether his will was over born much earlier and it doesn't show that he was not exit he was able to exercise free will as to whether to speak or not this is exactly like this court's cases in lopez and sharp where there's no cost of disclosure as in sharp or a huge benefit as in lopez and this court has said that those types of promises of leniency are enough to or coerce a confession out of somebody now of course the district court decides the phone look to things like mr young age the fact that he was received miranda warnings the fact that the questioning wasn't too long and was friendly and the fact that  prior experience with the criminal justice system a lot of those factors are things that were also present in lopez and sharp and did not persuade this court not to suppress the statements there and in fact some of these actors actually worked with the agents tactics if the agent is trying to the agent repeatedly said you can trust me i'm on your side he was trying to you to to tell mr young that he was the person who knew about the federal system and  that mr young could believe in him of course in that situation he's going to be front and he's not going to this is not a situation where is trying to browbeat a confession out of mr the fact that he was friendly actually played into his position that i'm on your side and you can trust me and the fact that mr young was in it had prior experience with the state system there's no evidence that he had any prior experience with the federal system and that's what the agent used his advantage he said look you can trust me this is how it works in federal court you may not know this it may not sound like much but this is how it worked the judge is going to take time off and he emphasized that with hand gestures every truthful statement you make will literally buy down the time you will serve in prison does the record reflect whether mr young was offered and participated in a formal proffer by which he made get substantial assistance and i don't believe that it does your  promises this court should vacate the district court's contrary order order the statement suppressed as involuntary and remand for further proceedings at which point mr young if he so chooses  before he went behind the car and that he didn't have a possession of the bag whenever he continued running away from the car there was some dispute about whether he actually threw the drugs or whether you know you're sane if he is since he's really guilty that we don't have to explained that it was both the promise of leniency and the fact that the defendant or the police about the strength of the case those two factors working together is what made it what overboard the will of the person but beyond that what we have here that differentiates this case from lopez and from chart and from the other cases where this court is held the statements were involuntary is the fact that we have mr mr young specifically saying what was on his wife what was going through his mind when he heard these promises of leniency we can tell because we know what he said and what he was saying what he thought that he nervous if in addition he said oh i've been to the judge too and the judge said you know it would lessen my concern in that league but it would be a factor but i wouldn't just sit on my laurels and if you were to tell me that i shouldn't worry i wouldn't say despite what judge and sarah said of the beginning that the court would be happy for me to see back as much time as i could i wouldn't just go back and sit down and the chair i would continue to make my argument because fifty one enhancement in your back pocket i would have to tell you i would think there probably would be which would be twenty years mandatory minimum if convicted of the more than fifty grams of methamphetamine i believe so  basically saying you can go the prosecution and the f b i can tell defendants that they've spoken to the judge and the judge is right on target supreme court had said that the use of course of language the use of roses and leaving c is a necessary factor for an involuntary confession but it's not sufficient and while we've spoken a lot and while  is entire argument essentially on what special agent brown said the question here is really was the statement voluntary and what this court could say is maybe in a different case we don't know what mr young then this this case would have turned out differently but what we know is before he confessed but after the promise leniency he asked he mused that he might be buying a far by making this confession we know that immediately after he made the confession that he asked if he was ever going to get out of jail or prison this is not the oh i'm going from ten years to five years he knew that there was a cost to this disclosure he knew that instead of moving the needle from ten years to five years he moved the needle from ten years up to some unknown unknown portion but beyond that and this goes back to what one thing judge phillips said and one thing that mr pinkus that he knew that he could but it's mr pinkus pointed out he knew there would be a cost to that but there might have been a cost at least on the cell phone to that's closure because there might have been crimes that the police didn't know about and the on that the things that he gave up were supreme court had said courts have to look at in determining whether or not the confession was voluntary things like the age the it held the education of the defendant here mr young is a forty three old man who had experience with criminal justice system he had his ged there was no indication of any psychological factor that would make him more susceptible to coercion there's the link of the detention he had been detained for four days he had seen a judge twice during that period this is not an the confession here came within eleven minutes of the start of the interview the major factor that mr pinkus is just flown by is the fact that he was advised of the very beginning of the interview of his constitutional rights th that's a very strong factor and finally there was no threat there were no threats of physical courage and at the end every factor with the exception of the nature of the questioning points towards voluntarin if the court has any further question requested the interview was at him was it mr yun because it's the nd time many aborted the st one i believe i have that's not the record i would assume it was probably a few who were serving the arrest appeared in court with this counsel i believe so i was on the record the fact that he had appointed counsel was the fact whether or not he had met with them i'm not sure that's on the record thank you thank you thank you this court said in sharp is that the special agent cleared the legal landmines and instead left a primrose path when when the government says there was no that he weighed the cost of disclosure he was told there was no cost of disclosure and in fact that he could only benefit from disclosure and again the key one of the easiest ways to see that this statement was coerced is not only how quickly it came after the agent's problems which shows that lincoln bias but also by comparing it to the state interrogation which presumably and there's no indication to the contrary there weren't these types of coercive and false promises of leniency there assumes he was asked about the ninety four grams of math he said i don't want to talk an end of the interview here he's very soon after confessed and so we would