the comment the when i greatly arnold was asked by the police officer after an off the record discussion whether he would submit to the tape recording in the police officer turn on the tape recording didn't want to talk on tape question was he specific he didn't want to talk on tape answer yes did he other than that refused to talk you answer no randon and i don't think that the court has to answer that question because the next excuse you turns the take on the tape recorder on arnold makes it crystal clear that he doesn't want he doesn't want to answer and he says it by saying no that so when when arnold says repeatedly no comment no comment no comment and then they the officer in fact at the end says does that mean that every question i'm going to ask you you're going to say no comment to and he says no comment well the officer then turns off the team record the officer got the message the officer the officer got it right i mean this is one of these cases where were the defendant invoke don't want to make any further statements so i guess bill comment is the next step down it could have been which means he didn't have any comment on that particular question or it could mean i'm invoking my right standard it's different whether it does that make a difference whether you know what type of error it is but what about do you know the error analysis in terms that it seems to me that this was a very strong two guys two guys that i mean from the two guys that do a robbery your client's not identified right but four but there's also a gun that gets shot off during the robbery correct and your guys fingerprint is on the so he's got a little problem because he told the police he was never there and then he doesn't testify at trial but he persists witness oh yeah we remember he did go there get cigarettes or something there's three alibi witnesses there's statement on what you believe the evidence and i think this is undisputed he expressly waived his miranda rights when the interview started he talked to the police for approximately thirty minutes answering their questions and denying that he ever set foot in that gas station that was wrong he then again waived his miranda rights when the police told him that the questioning was going to be taped when the taping began and he confirmed that he was waiving his miran rights when the next question was asked he said no comment he never said and the interview he never said would not he would not answer any questions he never made any effort to limit the scope of questioning the second miranda warning are was that after the second miranda warning they were there to miranda warning right the first was when the interview first began and the second miranda warning was after the alerted that the tape that there will be a taping of his comments and many of the interview itself after that was given the tape was turned on and he was asked did you wave your miran to turning the tape on and the tapes now on i filled out the statement form with your name and address and so forth and i advised you of your rights are advised you that you have the right to remain silent anything you can say anything you say can be used against you in a court of law you have the right to talk to a lawyer and have a one present while you are being questioned you if you cannot afford a lawyer one will be appointed in your marriage when did he give them render rights he gave the miranda rights before the tape was mean like what happened is he gave him his miranda warnings and then they had a conversation and then somewhere  saying it you heard those rights remember saying having these rights in mind you were talking you said yeah so he reiterated on her first part of the taint what he did i don't know that you would say that was the second advisement but he he go he says you remember i said all that you remember you said yeah yeah and then ok now grady we were talking to you about the attempted robbery then he says no comment so you don't actually if this is the correct transcript you don't actually have him bree waiving his rights again you have the officer reminding him at the start of the taping i read you all of this and you heard all of this and you member you said yeah and you said yeah correct possibly so it's not necessarily so the question is whether the state court was objective we are not reasonable concluding based on the circumstances surrounding that statement whether he was clearly unequivocally interviewed by the police has to be clearly unequivocally unambiguous the an assertion of miranda rights to stop the interview clear out ambiguous and when he was interviewed and the evidence of that interview was properly admitted he clearly he repeatedly he consistently strongly denied ever being  gasoline station that was robbed and he denied this nigger recently before he learned there's going to prints were there at the time of trial he brought in the perpetrator who had already completed his prison time who said no he wasn't there and then he was impeached because he had told the police before conviction that the that arnold was one of the robbers so the question is very simple did the defendant called him just a witness or did the prosecution call him and then get him impeached i believe the prosecution but i think he just said that he called them to show that but i mean i'm sorry i think the prosecution wanted him to say what he told the basically says the state didn't want to talk to you at all you know i think points for attorney no no no not withstanding the fact that mr arnold told you he did not want to talk on tape did you go ahead and activate the tape anyhow answer yes question when you activated the tape did you go over again the admonishment waiver of rights yes well we're not really ok we're really not the first part of the statements in correct that that's we're not resisting the officers pressure to keep talking under the tape and and this is where it's on the record now i just want to just quickly address the question this point and that is that on this alibi issue  because one of the things that that's in the record is that there was a read back and we don't know exactly what read backs mean except that some juror had some concern and the testimony that was read back was the testimony of the three alibi witnesses williams perry and when and that's found in the in the record on page eleven forty eight it's part of the exhibit eye to the return so clearly the alibi he was not just washed away that took some time