different then why should we follow that case why should we use it this guy there were three justices that dissented in that case you know your honor i didn't really say that case is mandating that you should  officers in the room only two of them questioned her correct correct but the point there the presence of four officers so four officers appeared with with the video equipment and i think questioning but they paired with a warrant to search her hands and i believe clothing and they presented her with this warrant at the start before the question and they told her that they have no one but rather than executing the warrant right reaction this was a complete psychotic breakdown she thought that she was in mexico she thought that she was fifteen years old i believe she was twenty three years old at the time of trial she believed that she was the record indicates that the help all still remained in her system i believe the half life of hell with putting a dr mason wall according that i believed all the doctors that at least the hallowed halls in our system but i don't believe that it's hell of all that calm her down the she was still under the influence that i want to be one of the experts testified to that effect  council because what does the record indicate then the facts i mean that psychotic break you were in the morning that she was still evidencing she wasn't crying during the interview nother factor that goes to whether the defendant goes in custody is the number of officers present and again there were four officers there which indicates much more than just a routine question and the fact that this was recorded in video tape i believe also shows that this was more than just routine question an indication that would lead a reasonable person to believe one officers and or a room with audio video equipment that officers that the improper statements would not be used against her and she was never informed of anything like that in fact homeroom did the opposite he  done because after that exchange and after the defense attorney clearly says she's crying the judge says let the record show she was using the motion voice of the judge the trial judge took the time to do the air i believe we have to say th that goes to whether or not the defendant beaten to death or mr irving to be two to death but when they say everyone is now it's now that have been you know she's three she's free from the hands of her mother she wanted an abortion she should have never had a trial she hated the trial she treated the known girl child differently than she treated her twin boys she wished the child were dead and so that those are the factors that tie in why that argument was prof another manner with regard to whether or not she was in custody when she was in the hospital room do you agree with mr miller with respect to the fact that the officers present in a search warrant and that is a factor neither the presence or absence of family friends is a factor however it's important to note that the officers did not shunt any family friends away to not say we have to talk to this person they have to take the defendant is they found it and they did it so i don't think that factors very strong against the state interests at all because that was knowingly cation that they sue clued her also unit and it does that mean it's all gone in the morning i think it means it's all gone if you look at the act again look at the video and you can see that there is no indication of loose nations or bizarre behavior or force understand so she's been advised several times what's going on here there's just example after example of the investigator trying to play the evening brando are saying are not poor and given the man or woman when they hundred seventy nine he knew what he is doing and presented in this case were not emotional to begin with that is the final shower which is a which is home more reason back to intentionally inflame the passions so are you saying that we're we're to believe that no mind should have been matters whether she's actually shedding a tear or whether she was speaking in a highly emotional will always the point is that if you speak highly emotional voice then this once again just like the angel to get the jury motion in charge the one  go off on the phone and that's number one and number two the evidence is not overwhelming on and i understand that you know the situation i'm in now i can't be arguing that the jury can disregard  there was error for the jury to do what it did but going back to the time of trial there is a very real argument to be made that victor was the one who actually beat this child and not christina and that