handgun was found nearby the elders person and felt there was this later question regarding that handgun and ultimately charged with a violation of eighteen u s c nine hundred and twenty two dollars g transcripts from both the suppression hearing and the trial show that mr felder is essential gave three statements a statement inside the house to detective hoffman a statement inside the patrol car st to trooper price and then  made in the house the car in the hospital at a hearing held on april th two thousand and nineteen that motion was denied by the district court trial later that year as trooper price began to testify felt there's objected to the court agreed to show a continuing objection regarding the defendant's three statements throughout the trial i would assert that the issue is preserved for the court to review want to appeal  at the suppression hearing the government has the burden to show d the statements made by fell those who subject to custodial interrogation were done so in compliance with miranda b arizona by a preponderance of the anything he says may be used against him in a court of law and he has the right to counsel and that counsel will be appointed to him if he cannot afford granted there is no specific phrases or syllables that need to be dictated to a defendant or that such advisements need to be given in the particular order the inquiry is simply whether the warnings re given reasonably can say to a suspect his rights as required by miranda b arizona i think in this case the record reflects that trooper pryce testified both in the suppression hearing and the trial only testified consistently that he read miranda from a car and a car that been supplied to him by the state police by the state of indiana that card was not read and evidence at the suppression hearing or trial nor is a copy of it introduced into evidence at suppression hearing or trial his testimony showed there was no written waiver randi rights executed or presented to mr feller's and that no recording or report and although the district court found the troopers credible which is certainly understandable given the totality of the transcripts for both proceedings there is little on the record to evaluate what specific advisements or language was actually given to mr felder is beyond what was described as miranda warnings by all three troopers and while those literally miranda warning warnings to presume that a defendant has been effectively apprised of this in rice and that his privilege against self incrimination has been adequately safeguarded simply on the assertion trooper price that he documents a recording to turn to to examine the actual language used by trooper price or the actual advisement given based on that i would assert that of knowing and intelligent waiver cannot the assumed on this record and in the case is that looking evaluate the adequacy of language the courts typically have some type of actual testimony this is what i told the suspect or a written waiver sometimes more than run one written waiver in other cases it's an issue of whether or not the written waiver is required here we simply have a that being said i think the rights of affected were substantial given that i believe are inadmissible statements were admitted and considered by the jury and that it seriously effects the fairness integrity of the judicial proceedings thank you during trial to show that the card did not have the right rights printed on it and judge sykes i think they've got to the heart of the issue that the nature of the challenge has changed from the district court now to appeal where at the district court and in fairness to the district court the district court did not make an express finding that the wording on the card was accurate because the judge was not asked to make that finding and after going through the suppression hearing the judge at the district court understood the issue to be that i have to try to decide who remembers things correctly and that's on th suppression transcript at page seventy four dollars so the district court judge himself understood that the real issue here was did he or didn't he did price read the miranda rights as he said he did by the indiana state police that's what the suppression transcript and page ten mr felder said that he understood the rights that's also on page ten and then trooper price proceeded to question him and even when mr fellers was on the stand and he was asked about his version of events of what happened that night or that morning i should say mr feller's the question was posed to him in this way did trooper price mirandized you did trooper hoffman mirandize you and his answer was no that's on the suppression transcript at page sixty five so even mr felder it's when he was asked the question were you mirand he understood the question to mean in the carman common parlance that we understand it but the way that's been the last fifty years were us whether you had the right to remain silent and were us whether you had the right to counsel he did that day or at trial same as i wasn't at the trial and i'm not sure if you had it on a trial either because there was a passage of his testimony where he talked about exactly whe closing argument that trooper pryce actually took out the miranda card while he was on the stand and that's it page eleven of going to the trial transcript that makes me think that he was probably in uniform and that he might have produced a card but that no i never thought to ask him to reading into the meccans correct and that underscores for the government's perspective that the real issue will not the wording on the card but it was whether  no argument that there are such things around no argument your honor and i thought along the same lines what if the card said something like you have the right to a phone call which is not the miranda rights there's e newman correct your honor that i that's the assumption at least there's no evidence to that effect  error it was harmless error as at the trial we learned that a woman named rose smith on the gun she'd never been at the house where the warrant was served for mr felder it's helped her move out a few months before this happened and he had access to the box where the gun was found so there was overwhelming evidence of mr fellers possessed the gun even without the statement and i must the court has more questions for me as i don't dispute that from the transcript your honor as with candor as i stand here i don't recall that in my brain but i certainly do not the transcript decided by the government