know we might go longer so i will see how things go rest assured justice hoffman who is not here today his friend briefs and will be listening carefully to the arguments that are offered today and will give the court case careful consideration before he signs off on it or of course thank you very much conversations between defendant and officer so that's what conversation are you talking about i'm talking about i believe this was about three hours before the ultimate confession he was told us that initial statement was just the noon time i believe so your honour's  you get one at some ambiguous time down the road and that was a you cannot have a lawyer yes specifically can i call a lawyer or kind of make a phone call and the police officer said no he said you can make a call after your s of responsibility that they're more vulnerable than negative influences not side pressures and are especially incapable of moving themselves from crime producing environments and finally that they have enhanced hastert for rehabilitation because their character is not well excuse me the court found that fifty two year aggregate sentence was sufficient to trigger mela protections now the court found that we do not regard a juvenile's potential future release in his or her sixty's after half century of incarceration sufficient to escape the court said we follow illinois precedent and reject defendant's argument that it's those of jurisdiction statute violates his due process rights again while the illinois cases involved the automatic transfer provision the reasoning applies equally here specifically as those cases the scuffs roper and graham addressed it amended challenges not alleged due process violations roping graham adjudicating oh there are some there are no meaningful procedural differences between educating a crime as a juvenile between treat them as an adult the primary difference is dramatically and since the range of juvenile convicted of first degree murder can only be incarcerated for twenty one it what the judge actually did in this case is also doesn't really pertain whether the statute itself is constitutional but the fact that she had discretion again as i pointed out the judge only had discretion to impose something higher than forty five years i think just  considerations apply you know so the you are suppressed by the u s supreme court on the mandatory life that parole doesn't give a meaningful consideration to the miller factors and similarly mantra like without parole for your sixty two also doesn't give any meaningful to consider whether you can all should first piece a subject to an adult sensory range and then what that sensing range and then what that sentence should be here of course don't have any discretion at all to consider the mitigating factors if you for the culpability my client may very well deserving get a seventeen my client and other seventeen year olds were subject to a minimum sentence of forty five years automatically no consideration of their youth is unconstitutional so the issue isn't whether you can get some kind of what from our position is now what do you can get some kind of discretionary sentence after forty five years we're saying that any kind of stretching or sense you get after forty five years or seventeen year old doesn't afford any consideration the miller facts what we're concerned with them is the mandatory minimum of forty five years in this case your honor i would like to point out that it it during the sentencing hearing my client did testify that he you know he grew up in a gang and drug infested area he had suffered from anorexia and depression when he was thirteen the court found that the fact that that defense was used at trial he admitted he was the shooter rocked the structure right so this whole issue of the statements made to the police officer whether or not they were appropriately it would get it over every single one of the statements is directly contradicted by other people in the car or or not corroborated by that well the things around it like when he got the gun where they went but the further his didn't get stopping at that location getting out of the vehicle they heard shots he got back and i could correct one thing that counsel said when he said that defendant was interrogated for thirty hours he in fact was not interrogated for thirty hours although custody for thirty hours each and every time he asserted his miranda rights questioning stopped stipulated to which clips the court would consider there were one clips of the clip their counsel focuses argument on was on clip number seven and then began at one forty eight and the second a second day of questioning here like eleven tomorrow the fact of adam's answered tomorrow sometime tomorrow right around eleven o'clock one way or another will make a decision defendant a asked i can't make a phone call  although as i mentioned if the context of where the statement was made this tape was made in the conversation about prison procedure of the united states supreme court and had been heaped ranch off that mention the fact that this question about he didn't he didn't if yvel miranda until he asked for an attorney approximately two fifty three in like in this case they fended f arm questions about processing he was being brought because the police had given the defendant information regarding the investigation he's been identified as a line up of the state attorneys here and going to the site which which of who's actually going to be  each and every time they fed then he felt my hand up questioning stopped and questioning did not continue until defendant actually knocked on the door and said i'm quite ready to cooperate three hours after the last until the last interaction position that it was necessary to admit the gang graffiti he screwed up in the interview on the wall in the interview room to show his state of mind when he killed the person when they broke was a year before it whenever it was it was some time rival territory and put his getting sick over that oh i read what he did hi my question was much more narrow what with that probably the if and why was it necessary to send that to the jury i heard your answer  amendment issue  punishment under none of the get them in the president can a statute establishing venue be considered punishment when we look at the history of a commitment that has always don't read some type of physical torture there was an additional factor of it being a mandatory sentence that is not present in this case there was not a mandatory life in prison without parole sentence that was imposed on this this defendant furthermore if we look at the sentencing hearing everything that miller requires was done here the trial for consider factors and aggravation and medication specifically medication which as statutory would require so miller in adult court it simply says that if you were going to censor you in order to go court you have to consider the usual this and everything that it encompassed that was done here in this case so for those reasons we ask that you reject the