april twelfth in the district court so found what happened on april twelfth was criminal investigator terry boyd promised jonjo that if he gave statements in response to questions regarding the stabbing of the victim in this matter and because the victim is a juvenile i'm just going to refer to i'm not going to say the victim's name if you will be not not be prosecuted for the statements of the district court found that as a fact see i've always promised was good two days later on in april fourteenth when he again interrogated john for a second time what's  again interrogated john doe this time for a third time and prior to questioning reminded him of the conversations from april twelfth and if all fourteen gondolas charged in this case with aiding and abetting under eighteen u s c section two that crime requires information of specific intent the specific intent here is specific in the sense that it must show that he wanted to bring about the assault a dangerous weapon that's why the statement obtained from john doe on may ninth this critical in this case in oregon d l stad united states supreme court clearly recognize  unwarranted statement was involuntary then the warrant statement may be suppressed as tainted through the facts of this place art expressed and that on april twelfth there was no miranda given on april fourteenth and there was no miranda given  initial conversation included a promise as a district court found that he would not be prosecuted that second conversation look for forever when the police changes and the police chase for money the police can change their mind but they have to tell the defendant with terry boyd me to do was say john doe we've talked before but the rules have changed i'm going to prosecute you based on the statement and that was not done here the fact that you give so already so that that you have that we are in iran we are but what's important is you cannot separate the statement that he gave after his after he was mirandized from the april twelfth statement because there was a promise made on april twelfth that promise you might as well they can give him a random number and i'm not telling the police to do to do anything under the facts of this case the promise should have been revoked under oregon b l stat if the very first statement is involuntary and  the subsequent statements flow from that statement that morning statement is inadmissible in the the reason why is because you can't separate john doe's rational animal act and giving the initial statement from the post warning statement that and that's what i'm certain missouri b c byrd is about as well that i cite that in my twenty eight jail letter your honor in that case the court recognized that improper tactics can be a factor to be used under whether or not the may ninth statement should become admissible i'd like to turn briefly to issue two it's a sufficiency of the evidence argument your honor there was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt here in the district court should have return said something that he had not and in response to that trickery jondo the statement that this court to convict and i would like to reserve the rest of my time for a bottle thank you because i don't think it's correct to assert that their first that there was a promise made not prosecute back the promise was that you ought to be arrested and that was certainly what he understood and that quoting from did he say did he say to you you were going to be arrested go acknowledges that i wasn't going to be arrested yeah question what did you take that to mean mr del answer that i wasn't going to jail his answer is not that i wasn't going to be prosecuted his answers that i wasn't going to jail then a leading question do you think that he meant that you weren't going to be charged answer yes i don't think that record really reflects that those understanding is the is going to be prosecuted of course i agree that the miranda warning on the statement is actually used would vitiate that even if it were a promise but i don't think it really is that promised in the first place similarly the suggestion that that it's a lie to say that the other juvenile had implicated him things done correctly or excuse me incorrect and that space is appen boyd used this time but the thrust of it is yes this guy has implicated you in the planning of this action well that's completely true it's not a deception at all that leaves aside the question of whether it's improper to use a deception think this court is clearly here held it is permissible to use a deception not that i'm not that i necessarily feel that way myself but i don't think one was use here anyway moreover what the question is whether or not the defendants will was over born his free will was over borne by the government i don't think there's any evidence of that in the connally case which we started it's a good example i think there a person who are you believe didn't have much of a free will in the first place because of his mental health issues confesses to a policeman in denver and the supreme court holds that there's no state action that overboard his will and so there can be no suppression well that's seems to be similar to what what the defendant seems to be saying here that he's such a weak willed person in the first place that he's so fragile that even the slightest promise could tip him over their heads and i don't think there's any evidence to suggest that he is that fragile he's seventeen years he's practically an adult he's got his guardian with him we're focusing on this promise of not prosecution that's not even really a promise that all that he seems to understand is that he understands quite correctly is a promise that i'm not going to jail he's not this fragile person who's will is teetering over the edge the government hasn't done anything to push him over the edge if you were and certainly hasn't lived in many respects  first i don't think that's exactly what happened here because he goes around so many times and he finishes up with this written statement and i think even the written statement includes the implication of x but just as in a more general term i think i think it's clearly held by this  permissible to flat deceive somebody to say we know that your fingerprints are all over the gun for instance even when we don't know that i'm not defending that kind of a tactic but i don't think that is what because i don't think that's what's happened here but i think the law is that that is a permissible tactic you know maybe a juvenile is more susceptible to that sort of thing that sort of tactic were being used but in general terms of think it is permissible it's back to a question of if you will report and i think the theory of like to address the factual issue first of all the district court found that there was a promise made on april twelfth and excerpts of record page one fifteen the district court of cited as saying it is certainly clear from the record that in so far as the april twel statement is concerned the defendant was told that he would not be prosecuted for statements on the basis of statements made it out at that interview in the district court legally erred by holding that that promise was only good on april twelfth and not going on april fourteenth and not that on may ninth i'd also like to address the statement with regard to the actual principal in this case he did tell three different stories the final written citation does not include the statement let's go get this guy we have to focus on what john doe was charged with in this case aiding and abetting an assault with a dangerous weapon which is a specific intent crime without that statement the district court could not find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as the district court recognizes that it is my determination that the defendant in fact knowingly and intentionally it mr scott in the commission of this assault there is no other conclusion to be drawn from the side of events that would say that