because the recorded confession contributed to the defendant's conviction now as to the error the state concedes that the defendant invoked his right to counsel during the interrogation but immediately after he did so the police continue to interrogate the defendant by where the questions were asked but looks to the comments and focuses on the accused perception of those comments to determine whether they're reasonably likely to elicit an incriminating spots and that's what we have here the video shows th defendant was brought in in the randomised he denied knowing jones someone jones's phone or being in his car and then about after an hour detective the dune explains that jones had been killed and that they thought the defendant had something to do with that defendant is completing that request we hear a walkie talkie somewhere along the lines that cell phone beep and an officer in another room makes a statement he says well even though the name ain't on there the boost records will show all the records of all the people he's been talking to and we will go and talk to everyone of us you know and quote and this is relevant because the defendant said that he had a boost mobile phone and the police had just shown him phone records more importantly the defendant response to it is interrogation he says  you're going to have to get that that because this is crazy i don't even know why i'm here then you have the detective saying that they have a search warrant for his d n a it's going to prove that he was in jones's house and car the defendant asked again for a lawyer and says this is crazy and the detective says no what's crazy is when you're sitting in front of judge first degree murder and so that's clear interrogation even if the walkie talkie comment wasn't meant as interrogation the officers in this room in the room allowed them to be construed as such by keeping the volume up and in the video you see the officers stopping to listen to that comment as well and of course the defendant responded to his interrogation and telling the defendant that you have evidence it's going to prove that he's guilty it's positing his guilt is fact it's not simply informing the defendant of the next steps estate has argued and even after the defendant again asked for a lawyer he's threatened they will be in front of a judge for first degree murder so these comments are clearly process that jetta and the detectives at the officer says yeah i took that last week and the jenna leaves and comes back and announces that he's going to the defendant's house to search and so those are the same kinds of comments that you do to me earlier when he said defendant events his willingness to discuss the interrogate the investigation reviewing what has to determine whether his previously invoked right was waived knowingly and intelligently and here any reinitiate it was the product of coercive pressures that eroded his will and the state argues not only that the interrogation ended when the defendant asked for counsel but that he admits this willingness to speak generally and give a voluntary  but that's wrong because the totality of the circumstances show that the defendant was coerced into making these statements because of the conditions of his custody now the defendant spent fourteen hours after he invoked his right to counsel in the same room and during th asked when he can go home about four times but in my case requests for counsel that's ignored he doesn't get to call a lawyer he's kept waiting he's not processed what is he waiting for the state doesn't explain why he's there for so long and the next morning the defendant asked again how long it will take because he needs to babysit his nephew the officer says will talk to the officers handling the case but nothing comes of that it's worth noting that even after the defendant confess he asked again for a lawyer and one of the officer said well i can't get you one but i'll see i'll ask around and see what i can do and the circumstances show that the defendant had no reason to expect that his request for counsel would be honored in the conditions of that room he rattles off the rights defendant nods and he gets interrogated when he's really randomize the next morning there's no response there's not a there's nothing audible it's under these circumstances being told this is just standard procedure like on the t v shows having his requests for counsel ignored and then again having them rattled off really quickly with no hey are you sure we need a response from you it's seen as a formality and certainly the defendant continued to speak but aren't you meant is that what that was i mean that was actually after the confession when he was when he was told that he would he actually wasn't told that initially he said can i talk to where they should sure there was no other discussion about that  no there was no written waiver now the defendant spent that fourteen hours in a windowless rigid room with gray walls bright fluorescent lights a small table for chairs and a locked door he spent a nightmare in the state disagrees with the circumstances state said it wasn't cold but the evidence shows that the defendant was cold he put his arms under a shirt he asked for blankets he wrapped himself with them the state also points out that he was able to order what he wanted from  but it's a frank cry from what the state argues is getting offered food and drinks repeatedly and getting to eat and drink when he want it is in a locked room he knocks he waits considerably long time and he slept on the floor under these bright lights he's seen moving from the table to the floor moving around he's woken up in the middle of the night the next morning he goes to the bathroom he comes back he's moving again from the table before he's clearly agitated and restless and eventually he starts to audibly cry and then he asks a tech gives whether he can speak to them and these records have pressures that were far from what the state described as a good night's sleep the defendant cites to people versus trotter for the proposition that the defendant's waiver is not knowing and intelligent if the waiver is battered and the state didn't address that citation but in math case the defendant was in custody for a shorter time he was there for a murder investigation mirand buying a stereo related to the investigation and then released the next day his arrest again he's told that there's incriminating evidence against him and he asked for an attorney he's able to contact that attorney and he has to wait a few hours he's kept in that room and during that time he's visited by the officers a couple times at one point two officers reamer randomize him ask him if he wants to make a statement he says no but he talks to one of the officers on unrelated matters and they chat for about an hour and a half and right at the time when the attorneys do the defendant says you know what i want to make a statement and you can fasts now the review in court in that case found that the defendant did not advance the willingness to speak even though he wanted to talk to the detective on unrelated matters and there even if there wasn't an edwards violation the waiver of his invoked right was not knowing and intelligent because the officers conduct for that hour and a half constituted coercive pressures the court didn't consider gauge conversation isolation but look at the totality of the circumstances in concluded that being kept in that room plus the repeated visits eroded the defendants will now hear compared to trotter you have greater or parent coersion that took place over a longer period of time coercive pressures are not limited to mental and physical abuse the state notes that there's an absence of that but here it's very clear that the defendant is kept in this room because they're waiting for him to talk and that is waiver of this previously invoke right was not knowing and intelligent now this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt it's the state's burden to show that the constitutional error didn't contribute to the defendant's conviction beyond a reasonable doubt the status of the evidence th evidence outside of the confession is overwhelming because the evidence is sufficient to support a guilty verdict but in a row mostly admitted confession can contribute to a conviction even where the other evidence would have been sufficient and here the state can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that that confession didn't contribute it's the most powerful piece of evidence in fact the state argue during closing arguments that the defendant could be convicted on that confessional low so revealing courts have to be very careful in finding confessions head with a lamp and then he left in jones's parmenter in the next day with a man named john white they checked on jones they wrapped him in a blanket import gasoline on him took some of his belongings and then sold them he said he didn't intend to murder jones the theft didn't know they were going to jones house now redacted version of that was played for the jury they saw the first hour they saw the defendant ordering food from mcdonald's and then they saw his confession the next morning the jury didn't see any of those course of circumstances that i discussed and the trial the state highlighted this confession and based much of its theory of the kates on it they said it also showed that the defendant was deceitful because he had initially deni being involved but then subsequently to admitted that he had been involved and the defendant also testified at trial he testified that jones had actually sexually assaulted him and that he acted in self defense he refuted much of his confession and said he was too embarrassed to tell the police what he had been interrogated now the state's analysis that the evidence is overwhelming relies heavily on this testimony but harrison receives united states tells us that the rebuttable presumption is that a defendant would not have testified but for the admission of fact fashion and that if the defendant is testifying to overcome the impact of that confession that's not rebut it it's clear that the defendant did so here the state then argues though nonetheless that with this testimony the evidence is overwhelming because there's no debate that the defendant was in jones's house on the day of the incident and struck him with a lamp but that conclusion relies on the testimony and the confession this there's yes there is evidence but again the standard is not whether the evidence is sufficient to convict but whether or not the confession contributed to the conviction beyond reasonable doubt and so here we do say that we argue that it's sufficient to convict on residential burglary right the holes in the state case are tied together by the defense can vent confession and also by his testimony and so the other you know the other evidence is there's jailhouse informant testimony but that testimony doesn't carry the absolute into truth kenneth bradley testified that he tried to get a deal and exchange for his testimony and his his story that the defendant told him doesn't really comport with the evidence he says that the defendant told him he killed jones with his bare hands and the evidence shows blunt force trauma he says the defendant said he cleaned the car and the car is not clean like it credibility was also impeached because you've been convicted of robbery murder and kidnapping and he received a deal from the state in exchange for his testimony as well and so as we said the confession ties the evidence together that the lamp was even used and that judge drove the defendant to the house on the night of the incident comes from that confession it's the most powerful piece of evidence and so this court cannot say beyond a to split hairs but just to say it's sufficient to convict but again this court cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession didn't contribute to the defendant's conviction and so the defendant respect your request that this honorable court reverses conviction for first degree murder and remand for the proceedings you victim's house and car they also said you're going to be going what's crazy is when you go before a judge for first degree murder and the walkie talkie comment and then they love or now they return an hour later to and the officer says yeah i did that last week it was busy but i got it done and then there's also a moment in the video where she's looking for evidence tape and the detective says oh that's the same kind of tape we're going to use for the evidence in your house so there's there's a continued discussion of we're going to show that you're guilty if you think it's consistent here yes because they're designed to elicit incriminating response from the defendant the says a defendant subsequent comments after asking for an attorney can't be used to cast doubt he never said i don't need an attorney and he didn't say i want to continue to talk until his will have been eroded we have unique it was about an hour it took a little bit longer rob it took a swab it took hair it took fingerprints so there were there were a couple different steps to that you think you know it might have been a little bit less it was a little bit after six and now the fact is that there was no i think it's crystal clear that the defendant didn't provide any statements the first night he was in there even let's let's just assume for the sake of argument that he was in after he requested a lawyer of course he was not needed i should stop there let's just first that he was not interrogated that night after he requested a lawyer there were a couple of the walkie talkie voices housel mention there were a couple other comments that defendant points to as those were designed to yield some sort of incriminating statement the people in this strongly disagree with that the walkie talkie voice was mentioned in the phone log between up he talked about these calls he said that there were ten calls between the families in john's so that was a new information if you didn't elicit any kind of response the first time how the heck was it the second time and if you will or whether the comments t to talk about no these were lightly at all to elicit any kind of reaction the first night the entire first night that the friend was in there he never mentioned it he never mentioned that you know charles that he was there he denied all involvement in the whole very firm on that point the entirety of the first not so any any of these these comments which of course were not questions this is the finding said yes there were questions but they were comments designed to had rights to counsel of course and proceeded to you know wanted to talk more about this incident of course he initiated this conversation and there's no debate that he knocked on the door say you know i didn't have anything to do with  that but what i can say is and that we all watched the video he was he was provided all the essentials the trial judge can't even comment that he was he was provided food water bathroom breaks use provided cigarettes when you want to apply to he was given a think what is there is it's pretty clear that the defendant was treated out fared pretty well by these officers he wasn't overly question he wasn't harassed wasn't had he was given miranda he would his rights were there were cases where the you know the duration of the detention was was much longer than this one this is a little over twenty four hours the supreme court has held thirty seven hours was ok in a case called people versus house and thirty four hours was ok and people versus nichols so if you wish want to go on straight numbers here this is considerably less than cases that have already been decided in favor of of admitting these videos  i don't want this specific facts of those hills thank you but i don't believe there are any specific rules that somebody can't be isolated first a certain number of time or you know the detectives the first after interrogating for the first hour and they laughed they told them that some of those comments that the fine it was referring to about this search warrant will prove that your house i believe that's where they were going to it and that was the nature of that comment was it to inform defendant hey this is where our investigation is going now they inform them what they were doing this is what's happening next to the any technician was in later of the hair and the prints and whatnot so i think those comments were were designed to inform him what was going on so were he asked for counsel before but at this point he didn't want it he knew he had it and he didn't want it i think again i think that the then you know was pretty clear that he knew what he was doing when he ask for one in the morning yeah there was that coming morning no he didn't yes oh sure and that's why that's why questioning ceased they didn't ask a single question the rest of the night they didn't ask a single questions or the following morning with the knock and said that he wanted to be you know insinuated that he wanted to talk about it there was no there wasn't a single question posed to him the rest of the night i don't i don't know the details of this case is that it didn't look like respondent had the defendant had any problems sleeping yes for a blanket i slept on the floor your honor i asked for a blanket he was given a blanket he didn't ask for a copy if you asked for a copy they would was his will were born in the treatment of him to confess and i don't see how watching this video can it can be argued that his world was overboard i truly don't you know what was going on here he does read his rights and he decided to from this video are very strong at the defendant pretty much cause this this this that again there's the lot of witnesses that defendant was driving the victim's car in the days after ground testified that the defendant sold him the the the victim cell phone which obviously means that the put it puts the defendant right in at the scene of the crime and for the most damning evidence is that the defendant's fingerprint prints were on this lamp that was bloody that that was broken and there is d n a was on a beer can in the house and in his profile can be excluded from all kinds of other things that were in and around the house there was no other  is fingerprints on the lamp so i think there's there's quite a bit of physical evidence that points to the van and having committed this crime so that people would argue that because the evidence that he was involved was so strong he would have had to he would have had to response to the state's comment to show him a case i mean we did trotter and there's no response from the state on that case you have a much shorter period we have a little under four hours when the circumstances are similar to the facts here you have a request for counsel you have an interrogation that ends up continuing in a different way you have officers visiting him and then the defendant says i want to talk to you but not about the case and the review in court in that case found that he didn't events or willingness to speak because of the coercive pressures that he was under he wasn't taken out of the room to wait for his attorney he was factors the first thing is when you're booked in a county jail it's a matter record people can find you and i think here the video shows a defendant saying one of my going to go home i'm supposed to babysitting my nephew we have no idea if anyone knows where he is that's got it that's clearly a concern of his the other thing is because every move is not being recorded you have evidence here on the video where he actually looks at the camera and says can i go home he knows he's being recorded that it's an added course of pressure you also have standard as to was not going home and that's a different that's that's a different thing for him it's not a road in his will so that he can find out what happens and he can be released or he can move on to the next steps he's being held there kind of an editorial there waiting for him to talk to know but of course he doesn't have a choice he has no idea what's happening to him and he's also as i said being video recorded i think also to the to the findings that the state referred to were for turner brief as well this this case has a slightly unusual procedural history because you have first a motion that was filed by counsel saying that you want to suppress the statements because they were given under rishon there's no argument that he invoked his right to counsel wasn't honored the court denies that that counsel withdraws because of a conflict and then you counsel files a motion to reconsider that motion and then files another motion because of the invocation of the right to counsel and to your question rea to contact family and again the comment as you said he's not going anywhere anyway the those comments ignore or don't do not address the other circumstances that the defendant was subject to and certainly don't address the invocation of the right to counsel right with the court's findings went to the totality like that the court was addressing the fact that he got a good night's sleep under the circumstances so the court was expanding the frame in that way  but you know the jury saw that the defense counsel agreed to the redacted video i imagine had to do with the invocation of the right to counsel that would be my guess but that's not stated on the record because it ends right when right before he asks for an attorney and then you see him ordering food from mcdonald's and then you see the confession the next  and just to the state's point about the defendant testifying saying the defendant would have testified in order to raise self defense looking at that evidence again that's that's not the only theory of the case that the defense could have presented and because the defendant actually testified it's ok when i said in my confession this isn't the story this is the story it's very very clear that he's testifying in order to overcome the impact of that confession