it raises an interesting question in my opinion which she does what really is the purpose of the miranda warning you have to the state police officers are allowed to give the warning and there mediately after that make false statements out matters that are directly covered by the warning what part of this false security well i think the proper miranda warning was given but what was false is when and mr marks invokes and i think that's exactly what the statement i really want to talk to my lawyer to though is it's followed up with a question under edwards i think it right there but it's followed up with a question well are you saying that you want a lawyer here now before you talk to us and mr marks asked well can he come here now and he's told no he can't we can't we can't get you a lawyer you have to wait to go to court to get a word that's false you're on in what respect was that false well it's incorrect because the lawyer there at the station knows there was not a lawyer at the station house but under california law the defendant is entitled at the very least to make three phone calls and it specifically states that through his lawyer or through a public defender the question was getting what the can i use the phone   believe that that's false i think that a lawyer they saw what was the question being south bureau homicide which i believe is ordinarily miranda advice are staffed by the public defender's office in there ok well i can tell you what happens with me you know i'm a federal public defender when someone calls me interrogated by the f b i and the client may be a repeat client or someone who knows that i'm duty calls me i say i don't want you to to under law and then i guess in the attorney one hundred because that's what i would do and i would call the officer and we would have a discussion and if it were me i would say we're not going to talk a lawyer right now or what yes i think the answer is yes you can those marks get the number to call well you know if the california penal code provisions are complied with it's supposed to be posted there i can't tell if it's posted on the left hand of the wall there is something weight off there on the wall that that may be a sign that has this posting i can't tell from the videotape myself but i suppose that the make these phone calls and it's supposed to provide the number of either the public defender office or like some indigent panel system that covers their particular area  to fart with you yes it certainly ought to be a truthful answer like well you have the right to make a phone call but it shouldn't be no no we can't get you a lawyer here that is fox and it's a falsity that goes to the heart of the advice me and what is the purpose of these advisement if they don't have to be truthfully followed through on if there was a legitimate question frankly under edwards which is a supreme court case i think the implication i really want to talk to my attorney to though is the unequivocal they clearly have a clear indication of the right to counsel so there shouldn't even be questions after that let's say you're right one of their murder was not necessarily clear heat he didn't do the shooting he was present somebody else did the shooting and the reason why i believe the taped confession was so important is because it was used to reveal his participation how he was in on it from the beginning unlike the defense which argued that he happened upon a separate murder that was ongoing with the right witnesses who testif pull the seat and out of the truck and go through his pockets yes that is true but the defense was not that he wasn't there the defense was that he happened to be there and exploited a terrible situation for his own advantage and that he in fact you know took money away but he was not in on this murder he just happened on it and then exploited it for his own and the confession i think was used to indict many of the defense theories because it was used to well i mean if there were that's all it seems like a long time for a jury to deliberate and to ask for repacking of the testimony of one of the witnesses who said that i mean three days for what is  pretty simple case is a long time for a jury to deliberate you know and you know the defense did have an explanation i see that my time is almost concluded i'd like to save a little f whether or whether i would have done something different is not the issue whether he should have acted differently is not the issue what about his response to this passage connected to the public defender and within minutes maybe a lawyer would be on the spot perhaps that is true but it wasn't some of that information that was before the speak or it stand at the time that these decisions were made th that's the way of using it also the way you're going to saying right here now at this immediate second no you can't there's not one right now they just have never said no you cannot have one during questioning the way to that interpret everything that was said during this point in can't make a lawyer materialize by snapping off in a sort of magic act like you know there's a lawyer and the question then becomes when you talk about now the question is can you have a lawyer here with