and in response to that there's not silence there's no clarification but rather a federal agent hopkins says he has to get the full story just like you told me so upon hearing that mr testament of course proceeds to give his full statement which obviously was used against him in the court here where he was found guilty mr tyson to try to suppress that statement arguing that it was involuntary but the trial worked the night that motion filing that the statement was about that saying you know to to to the extent essentially saying we as i have immunity and in response to that we're a state police investigators would say typically well this is just a formal procedure or in one of these at least he was full well that was moving county theory here and roll over the real crux of this argument rogers is that here we can reasonably rely on him rather than the federal agent looked at mr tyson in response to his question moving here is not going to hurt at all and instead of silence and instead of a clarification he says you have to give him the full story like you told me well there's no reason to believe that the federal agent is not going to actively urge him to give a statement that would incriminate himself and violate potentially really decided that runners to provide more support for the proposition that agreements that don't bind the state don't necessarily need to finance can't rely on that case of course the police officers made an agreement with the defendant and regards to a from that agreement that it only involves a u s government at the most in hearing defendant did not put on evidence that is participation in the murder and attempted murder had been authorized by any authority under her reception of that agreement and defend inform defendant that a federal judge had to determine whether the agreement had been breached by defend his commission of a crime and pursuant to federal case law that thing that may be indicted for a crime and committed during the term of the agreement before the j determination is made and whose main brief defendant asserts that he did not understand the miranda warnings read to and be detected early because he believes his statements about the murder could not be used against him due to the federal use immunity statements in his testimony one that he implicated himself and another he denied that defendant had made any statements that he was in its history to the murder so we get those conflicting statements we also had at trial later the finnis own attorney the federal necessarily said give tell him that you participated in the murder because we don't have any information that was exactly what defendant told hoppin in the hallway in his own attorney said he didn't hear that he didn't say that information hurtful to me rather than he's anything about his immunity agreement right iraq well even if his attorney said no it did not happen in the hallway did not implicate him so the curry said he didn't know exactly what was going to happen he didn't have enough information to charge him at that time you know it didn't happen was only valving to your your police department interview because cooperation because he was then considered a rat me agent if people were saying in norm that he had it set up these two dealers so he couldn't provide a more information in the future that next part of the deal was that they would make his earlier conviction for a drug possession and call it go away something but the court found that there was a cooperation agreement in force and that his due process rights had been violated when they later charged him when they said they wouldn't and we don't have a we don't have that situation here wrong about his agreement he probably had the transactional immunity he didn't he had promised not to be prosecuted and the court found there that the shelby county state's attorney certainly could have prosecuted they just couldn't use those statements because they were involuntary