promises on more than one occasion to make a hill that it would not seek further prosecution on both occasions my client provided information incriminating information to the government and on both occasions the government did not live up to its in the market now i'd like to discuss argument one first but i want to just give the whole background so the first promises were when detective taylor said he was not going to go  gun charge and reliance on that promise to me go to hell talk about moving a gun and then a year later the government had it the state of the gun charge directly after that the state and we go hell entered into a cooperation agreement now pursuant to this cooperation agreement the state was seeking information pertaining to an unsolved homicide of caleb with officer detective pruitt testified that pursuing or from the information that to me go help provided led them to a man named daniel jones who possessed the weapon that was involved in the with the homicide also detective kaylor testified at the hearing but i think before i talk about that i want to point out that that conviction happened before the jury trial in this case and the state never informed my client or his attorney below that they had attained a conviction using to me go health information now once the defense counsel found out that there was a conviction against daniel jones he brought before the court hearing his health now there are two main clauses in the agreement i term them the truthfulness cla that's where the revocation power lie that's where the state said we're revoking this unilateral there's also known void clause now concerning the truthful in the squad was the agreement the written agreement said that the state had the power to get out of the agreement if the mi go had provided false misleading or incomplete information now at that hearing on cross examination detective pruitt admitted that the information was not false or misleading there were several interviews that took place between detective pruitt and amigo hill and each time tech to prove it said that on cross examination when he said that there is additional information provide now at that hearing the state could have simply said you know to me go to hell said this on one occasion and this on another occasion shown an example of an inconsistent statement or something that was false or misleading but they did not do that at that time and so so the trial court's finding that that it was properly revoked pursuant to the truthfulness clause which clearly wrong now there was also another clause in there with all the known void clause now what the state was seeking was information involving the way the homicide or the firearm use the legal bills information led them to the weapon that was used in the way the homicide power the way the term prison it's it's a bit begging gives too much power to the state there because even if he was not the person who pulled the trigger he still could be responsible in a way so far as after the years ago someone to do what i understand these nuances concluded that you know this arrangement or this understanding of the state of this deal was correct that appropriate that the defendant it was not the state didn't great it by charging this bundle and so i suppose two questions first what's the standard review of that and evaluating credibility in part when he did that and the officer did testify that the manner in which stan from ation came out roger yes your honor and then on that was on direct examination but then on cross examination when he was asked if the information was false or incomplete he said that it was not possible i mean excuse me both are misleading he said it was not false and misleading at that time the state had an opportunity just to provide one single back sample one single fact of why it was so misleading when they had three over a course of three interviews between the nico hill and effect through and so i think  stepping back and looking at this there's two standards at play here one is that the government drafted the agreement so with these terms of a term like the responsible should be construed against the drafter the agreement and then also for cooperation agreement it says this is our supreme court has said that the strictest standards of fairness apply now i think when the state got a conviction using my client's information on the murder weapon used and with a homicide we did not disclose that to for reversal and then also to remain to enter the terms of the agreement now if i can move to the second issue and valving confession like to quote quote if i could quote him further we're not looking to fight until it is what we're not looking into charging people with moving guns there were several instances of statements like that from detective taylor to to but he never basically flat out said he wanted but i think that's contradicted by the one statement where it says quote detective taylor told me go to hell quote we're not going to go up and add to your charges the gun charge and  i think when you look at the totality of the interview what's going on there is detective kaylor is trying to get to meet the hill to talk about moving the gun after the fact because they have a witness come back and get him it's hell assurances on the gun charge with statements such as what we want the murderers we don't want after the facts that we don't give a shit about that we've never given a shit about that in cases and we never will so the strategy here is to assure mr hill that no gun charges are going to be made if he talks about moving the gun after the fact now in reliance upon that to make a hill talked about moving the gun or what does it mean when the officer three different times says i can't guarantee that i can't guarantee that i can't guarantee that i don't know what t where the state's attorney would do that or not and in the middle of that defendant says i'm talking about the gun charge at that point it's clear or seems to me to include he's worried about  the cooperation you going to bring those the word guarantee there was used in context on the murder charge that's what a tech killer would say so detectives say i can't guarantee anything on the murder charge but if i could quote him again your honor quote but i can't he uses the word guarantee here i can guarantee that i want my investigation to lock up the shooters and so what he's doing is he's saying i can't guarantee on the murder charge but i can guarantee you that no gun charges are going to be out and so that's when he says the guarantee statements are always in relation to the murder charge isn't this again better grist to the though even under the manifest standard the trial court said to take a pill or minimize his interest in the gun charges but he never actually said that he wasn't going to they weren't going to add a gun charge and i just read back to the one quote words undeniable he said that  we're not going to go out and add to your charges a gun charge and then when you take that quote with all the other statements about the police interest such as we're not looking into this we want the murders things like that it reinforces that one statement that about a gun charge as an afterthought and at that moment the police aren't interested in a gun charge he one party tells him i don't care what you say about that we've already got it because they had other witnesses for him about the gun charge and it's only at that moment after detective has made several statements regarding the gun charge to our over two hours into the interview is when to me go hill starts to talk about movi readers may please the court counsel but the state first argument is that defendant's statement the phone call to his wife which was recorded  was never objected to and was not raised in a post promotion but nevertheless was shown to the jury with no objection and in that all conversation which this  video of defendant tells his wife that junebug who is his that's the nickname for a man named excuse me yes this june bug informed on him so in response he informed on june bug and said that he moved the gun being a convicted felon and possessed a gun by his admission to his white state's position is that i was never raised in the motion and they will of their response will be well we said all statements but if you look at the record there were several conversations on different days between the detective and the defendant and  before the motion was heard they limited it to just september the seventh and i think and if you look at the post promotion it only refers to statements made to detective taylor doesn't make any reference to the video recording of  talking to his wife in which he admits that a firearm that argument is a valid than misled by the tech to taylor and the state hiding out all this evidence from about mr jones is not supported in the record charge that's why the state most of demand that same charge on january three two thousand and fourteen no objection by the defense right because he was getting out of a murder charge off saying that i'm not saying and i'm not guilty i tried to plead guilty to the charge of the gun back in two thousand and twelve which was two years ago the fenton on page ninety nine two years ago i offered to plead guilty to this the gun charge that sounds like someone that's been misled by detective kaylor and then if if the state has an earth the court doesn't find those arguments to be valid we have a judge choreo and judge diamon as the court's already pointed out you're talking about over one hundred years of public defenders and cooperation agreement the court knows they just said it was in two thousand and twelve jones pleaded guilty just possessing this gun during hot weather revoke it if it does not lead to an arrest and charge of at least one responsible for the homicide of witty of that if it didn't and the facts after getting out  murder charge then all of sudden they wanted this this weapons charge and then all the sudden they want to fight that so they start filing motions to suppress right on the day of trial so then we have judge dimond review the whole thing go through the tape to get h and then two and a half months after he's found guilty we have a barrage of motions one of them saying oh we went oh we're now out now do we lost the trial we staked out of a murder charge and then we lost this gun charge now we want to go back  two months after the trial two years after the agreement we want it we want to pull that we want to get out of jail free card pull it out of our pocket well this is volume thirty four page twenty this is mr baker defense counsel case as far as the wife statement goes that was it was it was part of the motion to suppress the low all the statements that occurred on september seventh where right before the hearing they had thrown out interview with the police and it was it you know thirty seconds statement and it wasn't any new information to me good just told detective taylor and made it to move the gun games and backes about that then he talks to his wife and said this is what i told i told detective taylor i told the police i move the gun he didn't say anything new anything that wasn't now on the to me go hill and detective caleb booth both were aware that the whole thing was being recorded and so to me girl never would have said that if it wasn't for the fruit of detective taylor's promise not to add a gun charge where he then confessed and said the statement to his wife so it's all one package if hypothetically that the white if the wife say if this court were to say hypothetically the statements the confession was suppressed should be suppressed not the statements it would not be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because that could have changed charo the trial attorney strategy below as far as not wanting all the previous parts of that interview where showing detective kaylor kind of pressuring to mico hill at that point could have changed coun strategy now as far as the murder charge and as opposing counsel use the word snaked out of a murder charge i don't believe the murder charge was not dropped intel after the sentencing on the gun charge so it wasn't as if the murder charge went away before the jury