morning your honor smith please the court i'm allison claire assistant federal defender on behalf of mr roach as you know the only issue presented in this case is the voluntariness of mr rogers confession and i'd like to turn to the particular findings of fact that were made by the superior court because it was the trial court in the suppression hearing that conducted the factual inquiry into the voluntariness of the compassion we've identified in the briefs for transcript of the interview which is a have three of the excerpts the information which mr roach did volunteer and i think which we can fairly characterize as having been information he wanted to get off his chest was not the information actually it starts on the very first page where he says i feel that line fourteen page one that's the very beginning of the conversation and as you read the subsequent ten pages or so you'll see that mr roach does start talking very freely about the fact that he used to be clean for four years and he had painkillers after surgery this caused a relapse and he's very distressed about this families economic circumstances repeatedly during the course of this transcript when that is the topic a reasonable actual finding based on this record as to the friendly ness of the interrogation and other factual findings of the state court i would certainly not say it's reasonable to characterize the tone of the question eighty two we're now and have for which is the transcript of the evidence you're hearing at the bottom paragraph of page eighty two which have for the trial judge referred to dr patel testimony regarding the stages that an addict milder symptoms as beginning about two hours after the last administration of the drug on the opposite end of the spectrum line sixteen and seventeen peak intensity of withdrawal from six to eight hours after the last administration now we know that in this case the questioning began three thirty in the afternoon mr roach had had his first does that heroin his only dose of heroin in the of the day in the early morning which means that he was at least six hours out so the judges conclusion that he was in the you to talk about this bank on this date and it's that link consistently between the insistence that mr rush to her getting a cigarette and getting medical attention and continue questioning about the robberies that constitutes the police coercion in this case i want to briefly before i reserve some time for rebuttal to address the harmlessness issue that's come up in the last two arguments so far because that question was never considered harmless certainly you need to do a count by house analysis there are six different robbery it's each with a twenty five year life sentence attached and the primary other evidence of mr rush's identity were in court identifications five  six tellers one for each bank but in reviewing that testimony and i'll drop a footnote here to point out that in this case the attorney general did lodge the entire trial transcript and the videotape with this court that is part of the record two out of the that she was focused with the gun and did not get a clear look at his face so i'd argue that those two are unsupportable about the confession two more witnesses jackie west and they only dressed from the october night ninety seven and twelfth ninety seven robberies respectively both identify the defendant as the robber in court but were significantly impeached his west testified that she had actively tried not to look at his face because she did not want to be able to identify him and she had not hit him out of a ruling regarding the get it off his chest comment that the trial court made i believe that that comment really went to the overall nature of mr roach is attitude regarding this this matter although he said i want to get this over with regarding the drug addiction and so forth he was clearly willing and cooperated with the officers starting with the first contact home where he gave consent to search the home and that arrest and that contact by the way was made about twelve thirty pm and that cooperation continued on when he got to the police station with this this is not a case oftentimes when you encounter with you're dealing with the voluntariness question on a confession where officers question  for a lengthy period of time who maybe is reluctant or even in denial of what he might the suspect that ever accused of that situation and then finally breaks down because of the physical weakness your are you providing at least part of the answer when you said you have to look at the extra analogy of what's going on dr patel's testimony was primarily in the abstract it was about his expertise in the books need written  and in the abstract what you might expect from somebody who was addicted to heroin and there there are various levels of addiction we have to agree to that too as a matter of fact if you have this is responding to your question i hope you  if you were to compare for example this case with the kelly case that you cited in that case that the senate had a two hundred dollar a day habit mr roach told the officers he had an eight dollar a day habit the doctor was testifying with regard to generalities and things in the abstract and what we had here was a videotape and a transcript of that videotape of the actual interrogation which the doctor viewed and when it came down to having him testify with regard to mr roach he was completely unhelpful to mr roach what he said was frankly in all honesty i don't see any signs of severe withdrawal at all here can you put my nose in that statement in the trash  dr patel is testifying in the abstract in generalities for the most part for he was given a baseline and as you point out now he's focused on the  judge uses this is evidence he says in the review of the videotape it seems to me he's in that early stage yes but that's you you have to make a determination based on what's before you can try to discern what's in a person's head if there's nothing displayed in terms one looks at the objective symptoms in part but here you have an expert saying you know i'm an expert in this stuff and we've got to symptoms don't always reveal what's actually going on right then that's simply becomes a determination for the trial court to make he's not bound by the experts testimony in that regard he can also view that either that or go to the weight of whether he making a credible or reasonable determination certainly does and there's plenty of evidence on the other side of this question as well the doctor said ok maybe there's maybe there's something out there that we can't see oftentimes well the judge  rely upon that and you know expect these officers to look at the subjective mental process this is going on in inside mr roach his head and in fact  you have here a situation where he's cooperated from the get go really and the length of the test the length of the interrogation i think is is hardly a factor here because if you look at both the transcript and the tape his admission of these robberies came very early on when in the first five to ten minutes of the interrogation of the questioning and he admitted his complicity there and from that point on it was simply talking about further details they talked about some of the other one charge robbery which by the way got edited out of the tape that was given to the jury and so forth so you know i think in the really where the old adage i think applies and that is that a picture is worth a thousand words granted the picture doesn't x rays green and tell us what's going on subjectively in his mind but  within his body well that that is going to have to come out through the outward manifestations of what he says of what he does and there's very little there and lastly i'll just conclude with and i've cited the kelly case in my argument other hand the conduct of the police and i understand that coercion is required however i think that the subjective experience which dr patel testimony supports the conclusion that there was more going on already feeling sick and he was only going to get an hour and by extending the interrogation they were relying on the inference we would have you draw the line on the fact he's going to keep stealing sticker in order to get the confession ok thank you very much thank you both so much for help