good morning your honour's and i'm richard friedman with the appellate section of the criminal division one way to understand why minnesota against murphy controls this case is to consider how the supreme court compared t he circumstances of the probationer to those of a grand jury witness a grand jury witness is required to attend the question expression is required to answer the prosecutor's questions is required to tell the truth all under threat of contempt and he's not advised that he has any right under the fifth amendment not to incriminate himself but if he gives an incriminating answer to a prosecutor's question he will not be heard to complain that he didn't know he had a privilege that he didn't understand the contours of the privilege or that he believed that the requirement to truthfully answer the prosecutor's questions overrode the privilege the supreme is grounds for punishment the supreme court drew the distinction that we relied upon there is a difference between being told that if you would invoke your privilege you will be punished and being told that you must answer all found of course that that is what of jackson's legal the finishing means there was nothing in the record to suggest that the probation officer said or did anything that would indicate to a reasonable person that the state threatening revocation for the invocation of the privilege and defendant has never asserted that he subjectively believed that he would be punished for the implication of the privilege because this position has been he w rejected his claim that he had everyone well because we know what the statute actually means under oregon law we know that no person could reasonably believe that oregon actually does impose a penalty if there was nothing in the record nor any district court finding that the factual circumstances of this case what the probation officer said or did would cause any reasonable person to believe there was a penalty on the implications of privilege and the found that they reaffirmed ten bush and bush upholding this condition the important thing is that it's not the subtle differences in the wording of in your feet be truthful in all matters were in this case to properly and truthfully answer all reasonable inquiries the important point is whether it was communicated to the fender not that he had to answer questions not that he had to tell the truth but whether it was communicated to t as we have stated in our grief and as we think murphy fully supports it is a lawful answer to end incriminatory question just great i decline to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me and  grand jury witnesses put in exactly the same position now there are reasonable arguments as to why or probation or circumstances distinguishable from a grand jury witnesses but the supreme court considered those and rejected them and were constrained to that the condition that was involved in ten bush which required the defendant to give truthful answers and let us suppose for argument's sake it was the murtha condition that under oregon law that condition of truthtelling did not carry with it any penalty condition is more lenient than minnesota against murphy because he only had to truthfully answer all reasonable inquiries and i could argue that it's not a reasonable inquiry if the enquiry states you must not exercis violation and that's where the similarity to that is a case is important and gives or the formation officer also testified that he never told the defendant and never let him to believe that a violation of the condition would rule result in imprisonment i think the defendant that i wanted to point out that the government argues that there's no indication in the records that mr speech out ever hesitated or tried to invoke his fifth amendment rights and that's the argument of the dissent in garrity time case about the penalty police officers never said that they were hesitating they never said that they were compelled by the statements to to make to give their testimony they seem to willingly give their testimony and the majority rejected their majority said no the problem is  unconstitutional position that the penalty situation is something we want to look at what the state actors are doing and so we don't need to focus on the defendant we focus on what the state actor has done and in this case the state actor chose to impose a condition on  an educated and someone new to the commission system and to tell him that you were required to answer all of my inquiries and that statement compelled incriminating statements and for that reason the district court was correct i