now you appear to argue for a more active role today due to officer while he was there with the defendant but is that supported is that active role supported by any case  speech transferred to adult court you can't pollute he says he could be transferred after hearing in juvenile court and transferred to adult court is always a possibility under the facts the circumstances here former coach it's another thing to play games with people's constitutional rights to make promises about rights or to make representations about your status of the legal system  the rules of being a jew not this or doing are teetering trying to ponder whether or not that was ethical i e i don't think there's any teetering and i certainly don't think there is any ethical behavior there are two lines of is you know that he's not that his group is not over the born as you pointed out certainly if you view the video there is no evidence that his will was law basically is that that the are not required to call the parent that's certainly a factor in determining the voluntariness in this case the defendant was given the and seventeen at the time of the in fashion and just because one of the questions i asked were the in his prior two thousand and three situation it was concerned with buckets of tears and i think when you look at these law that says that the officer doesn't have to have an active role you know what i can remember at the time of the hearing because patterson came out have a hybrid role in fact the defense counsel's brief he argues that schlitz was entirely too passive and didn't do anything it's officer capillary who asked all the questions apparently there is one little bits in it where he wrote a note on this hand and i have to confess i had to watch the video several times before i picked it up so it's not a prominent feature he did not actively he specifically found at page six thirty six of the ten it was not credible he here at the testimony of the two officers he had the testimony of the defendant himself he did testify in motions press although he didn't testify at the done numerous confessions players usually most interested parents so at some point in the end of the week makes a statement that this is the only interview we've had and he did make that statement in this interview on the alleged pre interview which the trial court specifically found did not happen so it will be with you there in the interview detective kapalua he responds and saying in the first line out and he was using cocaine in march of two thousand and seven there's also the fact that the defendant i believe this was his statement in the motion to suppress was claiming that  apparently he told died when he jumped into the car after the incident that the defendant had jumped on so it's not entirely clear that this is in fact a murder scenario in that serious charge and that was transferred i don't think there's any chance that he was misled as you point out they never tell him that it's guaranteed to be in juvenile or is in fact when the defendant claims is trying to cover a spaces in he said that he had conferred with other people to see you know since the defendant was sixteen at the time the incident seventeen i at the time of the interview you know in that where they're wrong if they do wrong they don't but in this case i think  everything in the case law says that there is not any reason to find any confession invalid and it's certainly not a reason to overturn the decision it is one of the factors in determining voluntarin and he received a very light sentence he had been out for six months when he committed this offense so he's already superseded that miller great benefit if you would in two thousand and three i think that this is potential on he has already demonstrated very actively that he didn't that there's nothing that says you only get that benefit once and there's nothing in the supreme court case is that your own personal view of this and i believe you're is stacking up you know a body every year is as he has in this case he can have you know and to not have or are you know maybe three more bodies stacked up you also have to consider the public safety factor and that is one of the major points that the court has going into that into account and certainly in this case you know you do have to consider the public safety factor  an ability and i think that judge chains certainly did in this case and specifically mentions the defendant's youth but he's also concerned not just with his criminal history but with his attempts defendant's statements involuntary those are those misrepresentations if you look at those cases were is to factual issues in other words it would be really this efficiency of the evidence and and and so forth his guilt or innocence in a case like this where treated as a juvenile when what it looks like it would have been a mandatory transfer so in other words this would be as to a prestigious role aspect as opposed to kilter innocence does it make any difference in your mind as to whether or not