coleman and susan tate reversed his conviction for the murder of joshua stanley after finding the defendant's post polygraph statement was was involuntary based upon theories raised for the first time in the during his opening remarks counsel limited those theories to the question of whether the detectives questioned defendant during his transport from michigan to chicago without benefit of video recording whether he was r and whether his handcuffs were too tight during their transport and it impacted the voluntariness of his statement recognizing that the other theories raised in his motion to suppress were bit there is that he could have pursued he decided to voluntarily abandon them and that constituted a waiver in this case and we know it's a waiver in this case because how is the reviewing court to review the issue of whether these new theories impacted the volunteer enos where there are no factual findings regarding those theories and there is no ruling regarding those theories in fact the court h to rely on trial evidence and evidence found in a sentencing document that wasn't that weren't here by in order to support its finding on those alternative theories presented for the first time on appeal in addition to that for the first time before the appellate court and using sentencing documents and trial testimony to support that this leaves the state without any opportunity to defend their position on those alternative theories it's unfair to the  never had an opportunity to rule on those alternate theories and it certainly is unfair to the victims of these serious crimes in addition to the waiver argument the appellate court suits fanti raised his own theory and this also was the court view that the videotape interrogation in its entirety and concluded that in a portion of it the defendant was smoking marijuana and then was drug addled when he passed in his post polygraph statement this also was there it is impossible to discern from the videotape exactly what the defendant's doing the detectives never had the opportunity to explain what was occurring at that time the state never h ad the opportunity to explain what happened at that time and certainly there was no testimony the defendant was drug addled when he provided a compassion six four hours later what do you think the standard review should be for reviewing court that has the same video that the trial court has been first keeping in mind that this issue was never raised by the defense counsel this court made it clear in people versus events that it's for clear and obvious error and there is no clear and obvious error in this case where the behavior issues and this big us the words aren't player and the impact on the defendant's ability to voluntarily can pass isn't clear either w able to make a determination based on the video with the in this in this particular case the video itself does not answer the question it's impossible to tell exactly what he was smoking it's impossible to tell it's impact if the issue had been raised then testimony would have been provided that would have delved out the issue about whether defendant did smoke marijuana in there and whether what he was drug addled following them so alone in this case evidence also answer the question so again this was not a clear and obvious error at the impact that that conviction that wasn't in challenge the other evidence in the record established defendant's guilt of the murder of joshua stanley where he readily admitted that he committed the act on there were a series of errors in this case and this opinion cannot stand it's very important because it impacts the w every motion to suppress will be litigated in the future and that certain issues will leave the reserved for the appellate court especially when there's video evidence in the case and in that instant then the state will have to answer every possible theory of involuntary inus that may come up in the pretrial motion to suppress for these reasons in the reasons argued in the people's brief the people asked this court and the people weren't allowed to respond to the new theory so the trial court wasn't allowed to rule on those new theories so at the very least the remedy should have and remand the for an additional hearing and those new theories that were raised for the first time but in no way is that the state's that's not exactly what happened in this case it is true that that counsel filed a general motion to suppress in which she alleged physical psychological mental course and and deception by detectives and it's true that she did utter an ambiguous statement upon introducing three new claims related specifically to the ride from michigan to area two however no one treated at at the suppression hearing at throughout the trial or at the motion a new trial no one treated a protective who had good questions have an i q is approximately twelve hours eighteen hour is twelve hours after he had been brought from michigan to area two and not only did they question her and call her they asked whether he consented to be be interviewed again about his communication abilities but there he had any complaint complaints about the treatment from from the police detective was there any testimony alissa did about what occurred in the jail cell there was very there was some testimony about it was it was it was a very guarding all of the issues raised it was a pretty cursory sort of that there was there was i should say there's not a lot of detail elicited by the state in this the burden was on the state of the state and not of this that a lot of a lot of details about any of michigan to into the area to and she was in not only did the state question her about these issues that related chick or asian defense counsel also asked her whether different whether here whether she was appeared that he was intimidated by the fact that who had brought him in the state didn't say oh no this issue has been waived this issue is the way of life and you can ask that it was just it just continued to be litigated and the court ruled on it finding binding and that whether there was physical or mental coercion and then again it closing arguments this was a bench trial and so the closing arguments sort of again in the motion for a new trial where again the state could say this issue had been waived why are we are going about this defense counsel argued that she was had been held up all night that he had been pressured to confess and all these things were raised again with no waiver argument from the state so if it really was waived why did the state argue against it so this is a mean that any time you file a boilerplate motion that that means that every issue has to be addressed to the state has the state never clarified so that if the state statement meant the waiver of this teenager's rights teenager who is facing the death penalty and the burden is on the state to prove that this confession what this confession was voluntary the state never made any clarifying questions which are you withdrawing the other claims had every opportunity to do that and chose not to and rather didn't argue about these issues and so this was not the sequence of this was a well articulated strategy to abandon these other claims these claims that the state that defense counsel had raised in the to suppress there was no test there was no strategy there was one ambiguous statement that was never followed up on and that no one relied on the states playing a gotcha game here this is a teenager was facing either the death penalty or mandatory natural life in prison and the state's seizing upon one ambiguous statement that was relied on by no one and i'm relying on it now on appeal to say that having a hughes could out challenges can fashion this would also have a catastrophic effect and traditional economy and the opposite way  than was raised earlier and that defense counsel now would be required to go through and argue every single issue that was that was raised in any motion in limine a because otherwise the state would now say all of these issues were affirmatively waived when you fail to specifically argue in the so it is it is in some sense not relevant whether whether the marijuana was actually smoked or not or what's determined based on that because the difference is that the majority opinion was very careful to say well because of his youth because of his exhaustion because of this lack of food because of the deception by the actives this it doesn't even matter whether or not he smoked marijuana but there is the question of how did sherman videotaped evidence and that as a state suggested in its own brief was that that the appellate court can look at the videotaped evidence and use that to determine whether the court's the trial court's ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence and that there's nothing controversial about that christopher case that the state said that and we said that all in our briefs that that the appellate court is permitted to look and is permitted to weigh it against any findings made by the trial court this view even if we would find that defendants post polygraph confession should have been suppressed when that defendant be guilty of for clemens murder based on accountability well he did it's true that when one cavanaugh hughes was first brought to area two that he made statements that would make that would suggest that he had no involvement in the coleman murder that's certainly true however that doesn't necessarily guilty of murder additionally at that time that it was really the last confession related to the shooting of coleman that sort of brought everything together in terms of all of the evidence and he was saying this guy he's a saying various things none of it was very consistent all of it conflicted with the other ten look the other evidence against that trial in terms of the evidence from from cornell matthews and from dorian skiles the evidence that they gave was different from what he ridgeley testified to and there was no that he would be facing mandatory natural life or that that's that hasn't been proved at all and so for that reason the admission of the involuntary confession was not harmless because you're just if this court feels that the appellate court reverse nineteen year old would be found guilty of double murder and face and he was found death eligible and is now facing a natural life sentence and that there was this there was a small there was this evidence that's very the two people testified against him were highly biased they were incredible for different to do so under supreme court rule three sixty six and in retrospect it probably should have been raised because it as the states of the state claim themselves in their joint emotion and again in the supplemental briefing that we that we argued regarding jurisdiction these cases were very closely crimes however this court finds that the court did overstep their boundaries and we were asked not for both for both the convictions to be overturned but for the coleman murder to be overturned in the stanley murder to be to be remanded for further sentencing and just to go back to a little bit talk about why the confession itself was was involuntary this was again a nineteen year old very little education he was exhausted if this court has not yet you would give it you the videotape of the polygraph we would urge the score to do so this is a kid sitting in a chair run to falling asleep as this confession is being dragged out of him by this by this officer who was lying to him saying that she was on his side she was going to go to court she was going to tell the judge that he passed the polygraph and that he told the truth of how important that was and had also been given very little food he had one sandwich ten hours after he arrived the state says that he was not a hamburger there is no evidence of that he said something about hamburger out in audible michigan and the state also says that there was some conversation about asking for food prior to the trip to the polygraph office in my transcript in my video that conversation doesn't exist yes for a cigarette to square but and that was immediately when th arrived in the room he asked for a cigarette but there is no evidence whatsoever suggest that he ate any more than one sandwich between the being arrested at two pm finally confessed to five am and this is a teenager held up all night and just falling asleep and he was tired he was scared he was being lied to detective ford said that there was d n a evidence against him you can see in the video he just got his cheek swab a half hour ago that was a lie so even if we don't rely on any of the evidence  trial or in the in the p s i wish the appellate court really shouldn't have relied on we meant that there was so much evidence to show that this kid was just exhausted his will was over born in this final confession really was involuntary a trial embarked on a very specific strategy in this case and that was he was challenging the voluntariness of the confessions under the theory that he was not videotape during the transport commission to illinois and he was questioned during that time if that were impact true then every other statement he made after that would have been presumed in a miscible involuntary with an enormous standard for the state to overcome in order for those statements to come in and that was a strategy he chose or his motions press a trial he argued something alternatively he try to muddy up the waters with regarding the statements saying they weren't reliable because he was nineteen because he was tired because he was question exhaustedly because he was stalling out of this chair but those arguments were made in regard to his reasonable doubt argument to the trial court during the trial and that the motion for new trial that was not made or presented as a theory for motion to suppress in this case detective mitchell was called in question to compare each and every statement the defendant me was videotaped it was continuing from the time here right at the police station at three twenty eight in the afternoon until six zero one zero six ten in the morning the following day the state made is showing that every second the defendant was with the police officers more question it was videotaped and that answered the question that the defendant race also ensued to question the defendant was repeatedly given his miranda rights so there was a reason to call detective mitchell because if the state had not called them then the claim would have been we did not establish that each and every one of his statements were videotaped and therefore defendant's motion to suppress should have been granted there was a reason for that detective to be called the theories raise here today rely on facts that were brought in during the trial and in the sentencing document housel asked this court to now review that based on the videotape admitting that the appellate court overstepped its bounds when it relied on that trial and on that sensing document if defendant is correct that the all the issues were litigated at the hearing on the motion of the press and this court would not have to look at the trial testimony or at the sentencing document however in the own their own breece race here before this court there is of alliance on trial testimony and information found in the sentencing documents these issues were not litigated at the motion to suppress they were litigated in the appellate court without a ruling from the trial court and without the participation of the state in this case the evidence in this case was not closely allen's there were five prior statements in which he readily admitted to killing joshua stanley and in which he made himself for the murder of lies a coleman within forty five minutes of his arrival at the police station and know what what his codefendant skiles got in this case should have no bearing on whether the evidence in this case was closed or not because he pled guilty there was not a trial and there was regard to reviewing the joshua stanley conviction and the reference to rule of three sixty six that's a brute rule that applies to civil appeals there is nothing really that indicates that in a criminal case that there should be such an extensive review of an issue that was not raised by the defendant or a conviction that wasn't challenged by the defendant however in this case the evidence of his guilt in joshua stanley's murder was not even closely balanced there is not a clear an obvious error there was no reason for the appellate court to step in and reverse their conviction