thank you may have seen as the court counsel kendra matthews was ransomed blackman on behalf of defendant daniel swinger the constitutional concepts in this case are well established and essentially undisputed twelve break down the ruling in two separate parts and make explicit findings for instance she explicitly found that the patrol all the statements that would come into play would be our argument would be all of the statements relating to this case ready to be made a number to say anything tha that really doesn't matter that he made a number of statements your honor he was interviewed me to work for these statements where he brought them to a location where the guns were located  he was arrested he asserts that in the patrol car there are different times of the assertive he invoked in the patrol car he indicated he wanted to speak to an attorney then he was interrogated for a number of hours and the final incident and it is are excerpts references your honor excerpt record one seventy eight excerpt of record looks like one seventy one seventy nine word testimony about what he there was no further miranda warning and there it is undisputed that the miranda warning that the judge found occurred in the patrol vehicle was the miranda warning that took place for all of the interrogations for your  then they continued because you then said i can help you get the guns back let me make some phone calls and help arrange the return of the weapons and so it would be our contention that all of those efforts had his invocation  been respected would not have occurred unless the court were to find that he had re initiated contact which i don't think would happen on this record given that the interrogation never broke and so it's our contention that the judge obliged under the explicit rules to make a finding and that this court is not in a position to make factual findings when the government when the court record explicitly states i didn't see any testimony on this point and therefore i didn't make an objective analysis this court's task is to read mandate to the district court to say if you as we may think you hinted at find him incredible then the conviction is affirmed however if you credit his testimony these were clear indications of the right to counsel and all interrogation should have stopped and any evidence derived for this case there after should be suppressed he is here it was a conditional plea and he did say on the record and as part of the plea that he was only interest in the plea because a motion to suppress had been denied so the plea would be withdrawn and he would be faced again with going to trial on the evidence that the government had unrelated to the suppress evidence or entering a plea or whatever his options would move i make sure i understand if we were to agree to those to the ninth circuit the guy the lawyer the officer testified truthfully you're out of luck then you're back here again that is accurate your honor we're challenging that the judge did not make adequate factual finding if you have two and a half minutes left that's where i think the courts confused because this also includes post arrest comments to let me let me outline a little bit for you what we have is a meeting that set up by defendants friends who testifies in his behalf at the meeting he's arrested on  once he's arrested on warrants then he's taken the patrol car and he says he was never given his miranda rights and the officer said he was that's why i my brief i spent some time beating the issue that's been conceded now here's where it got interesting that bennett says before he's arrested before the officers grabby he says that he's using this cell phone to call his lawyer in the judge says i find you didn't do that but even if you did it doesn't matter that's equi then he's arrested he's taken to the patrol car he claims at this point that he saw his girlfriend get beat up by the cops unfortunately the girlfriend who was pregnant testified she wasn't touched by the police officers the other woman is not he's girlfriend mom and there's an interesting process damnation by me of him where he's trying to describe girlfriend then we i'm i'm just a court found i think are ample ample evidence to support that mr swagger not testifying truthfully but i'm looking i'm looking not in an oral opinion which is i think it's more likely that a district court might make a slip up but i am looking at a written signed opinion by the  i find even if it did shout the holly benson which would have occurred at the police department by the way call my mom and have her get a hold of my attorney while in custody it does not represent an unambiguous request for counsel so with all due defendant testified he told the detective i want my attorney present i don't want to talk to you without an attorney i want to use a telephone this was after he took the telephone and we were in the car quest counsel then she goes on to say in this instance that she did not find that he on a bigamous lee had requested counsel and then but then that paragraph at the bottom of page eleven defended did not testify about the will that gets us to where i'm headed to conclude margaret is fine kill you the g chord here when you review this instance hierarchy if you're satisfied from the record having reviewed the transcript you have the entire hearing hear you say well i find the court made clear and saying that he didn't make a specific request because he did the same time he was given his miranda rights but the defendant said he didn't get his miranda rights the judge said he was not truthful about that and found that the officer was more credible the judge comments about the fence witnesses and says they're incredible people doesn't believe she's more even assertive as you point out on the record so you look you reviewed the record and you say either one this was harmless air or two you have to remand for further findings for this and ask the judge judge did you really think he was lying about this also so those are the two courses i think this court has to say obviously my position is you have enough in front of you to say ok the judge had that wrong but reviewing the whole record she doesn't believe this man she doesn't believe that he asked for a lawyer and therefore absolutely edwards and that's why if he in fact made that request that is why i am a green there's no doubt that they can't make it better in fact that's the problem i think o j can had this was too good a request especially in light of the fact that subsequently he goes ahead and gives numerous statements of course always blaming other people until he's confronted the man that bought the guns from him and that's when he confesses that he say in so many words he did not make the request or just preface but she concludes therefore i conclude that the senate did not invoke his right to have counsel present your interrogation that's where i hang my hat on this case judge nelson and judge fine film judge by the that's where i come from she's not going to change your mind you send down to her but you have that option you either have to be satisfied that he did not invoke his right to counsel as he claims or he did or at least has a right to argue once again before the judge that he should be believe is not credible thank you just a few points in rebuttal i think defense his contention would be that it's sightly all of this discussion of i think you'll find from reviewing the record i think you'll see that you can form your own opinion about  precisely why this case must be remanded to the district court it is the district court's obligation to make these findings and here you don't have a situation where the court is saying let us look at this sentence on page fourteen of the opinion in order which my first point would be that it is the sentence referring to pre arrest and the calling out but if the sentence could be considered a finding i find that he did not invoke his right to have counsel present during the interrogation that finding is made on an explicit statement that she did not consider testimony that was directly on point in this issue a counsel can i clarify one thing you are you are no longer contesting the findings about record one eighty three and one eighty four which is pages thirteen twelve and thirteen of the opinion the judge says i doubt the veracity and accuracy of defendant and his witnesses but records available to be produced but the judge says i doubt the veracity but say these phone calls occurred and then she draws a legal conclusion about the meaning of those phone calls it's again our position that the case that  case united states ego is a different circumstance in which the defendant was asking in general about when he got a lawyer for the criminal case and here are the alleged assertions if you're going to take me in for interrogation i want to call my attorney and