what did he say which is unfortunate because you know the police report is admitted for limited purposes only just to show that he actually came over and writes hi nice work i'm sorry what you say for a limited the argument oh yes and i guess she should have been a little more forceful i think if you read her i have activity is a blunderbuss motion or argument you know that after after the evidence is put in that's not yeah the defendant understood the rights which he had been which had been explained to him and only then could you share with the his subsequent assuming that this was a proper ground for the courts consider in the first place state has to show that there's an understanding in the waiver by congress of the evidence and then the burden shifts to the defendant and of course there was no evidence from the defendant whatsoever because his position was i never got the parameters of rights to begin with there was he did he did testify also when they were given to me i understand i know what they are so he added to the state's case there the introduction of the end or the introduction of the theory well i don't think she really acquiesced she was but she did if you ask you she didn't say the words objection though she did point out very much to the point that that was not around sent set forth in the motion to suppress and you know the state isn't title to a fair hearing they have to know what evidence they're supposed to elicit that then at least give me the opportunity to be politicly but the court seems like it's going to entertain this sound she could i guess stand your position and and not be called daily but then you have to make that judgement call oh the circumstances here are very much in favor of foam labor and this has been around the flaw for long time he's the property i mean he's had three drug convictions he knows what he's doing he's thirty two years old he seems to be reasonably intelligent  understood involuntary it's always under seven twenty five l c s five slash one fourteen that's eleven specifically in either under section g out the issue and section eight the issue is always following parents there's always the two kronk issue no matter what the defendant raises in his motion the state's burden always must show when they present and they want and the voluntariness is the word in the statute so it's not like the state didn't know that that is the bird it's always there heard even when the defendant i use that it was not giv order for the bird to shit first of all random was given whether or not here's the issue whether or not the defendant made the state ok or did that means the state still has the burd your claim is that the defendant was not asked whether or not he waived his rights and that's the reason why so his waiver of bringing the warnings his state of wedges was well your honor even in the case that counsel relied it says even if the state establishes that miranda was given free of course standing alone is not sufficient to demonstrate a valid waiver they say there must the state must make the conditional showing the defendant understood or waive his rights that is fundamental even in the case law that the state sold relies on that is  fundamental issue that the state has the burden regards of whether and in that case of also says that it and and the state actually concedes to it in its reply no and it says riddance remarks appear yes because he what he actually judge i think at least ten to fifteen minutes long off the bench and one in the back and did his legal research or the record was not silent or an affirmative gesture of verjuice there was an affirmative gesture when after everything that happened in perth yes including the fact that system who participates in conversations with the officer who hires an attorney and it appears to know what's going on that the defense already in the search is going to be may  united states finkler case you just have to sort of understand that i'm going to hold you to prove up every week that could possibly exist that would be an obstacle to understanding and waiving the marin if you know if you don't know you can tell me that too i don't think that specifically i'm i well i don't know if specifically on that issue there has been a ruling however if you look at personally use or is it you know i don't know ok so that's that's from birds indicating that the fantasy that his rights there's got to be some kind that they don't say it has to be purple it has to be some kind of that's that's from purpose i'm not i'm not making it up i'm not me taking it from that he understood his rights and refused to sign as a form and this is a remarkably different situation from markets now in addition we cannot forget credibility demeanor and relevan said with regard to the historical facts from by the trial court but how courts review reviewed to know what it all mean it's that is whether these facts constitute a basis deferential as well your argument is with regard to what it all means but the law was correctly applied unless the church made a mistake in analyzing the law to the historical facts and if we did in deciding whether we made a or the person right there was not required the person wasn't in custody or there was an interrogation i that's not an implicit part every motion to suppress  that's the court said that was absolutely no evidence of understanding or waiver and it just simply over a lot of evidence in the that that was boring and there was no indication that it was illinois supreme court has a