mr irving was read his miranda rights and at one point when i had my way those miranda rights and agree to answer questions from the detective at one point after discussing what mr mr victim was harmed mr urban paused again for about ten seconds at that point he said i don't want to talk to you anymore so at trial the state move to admit the servants over the interview to the extent that when asked when he finally understood what the interview was about that's what this whole thing's about prosecutor point that out in the closing argument he implored the jury to go back and look at the video game during th impermissible influence of guilt that happened and then in their alternative really and they said look even if this was constitutional error and you know to introduce this video  erted his rights that's correct judge that is correct and i'd also posit that the alternative ruling by the missouri corps appeals that the evidence was overwhelming which  twenty one months old the only witness to it was a five or six year old actual wasn't a witness to anything and who gave inconsistent statements there was a lack of physical evidence in the case and it statements were then admitted at trial as well as a lot of other evidence to show that he committed the crime and he was convicted now as judge sheppard mentioned most of the statements that we're dealing with here were statements s court of appeal cases in andersen versus charles the united states supreme court found that doyle doesn't apply to a suspect who voluntarily speaks with police after waiving his miranda rights and in other cases like salinas versus texas the court found the same thing that silen the missouri court of appeals interpreted federal law the same way that another u s court of appeals has then that's very strong evidence that that interpretation was reasonable so here missouri court of appeals on the first set of statements reach the same conclusion as other  supreme court precedent dictates those statements should have come in now that includes all the way up to when ervin said that's what this whole thing is about remained silent after police clarified that's what was about and then there's another statement i don't want to talk any more appeals rule is really set up to determine what wasn't argued against him i mean here's here's the thing really to me the whole the whole issue is the in vocation of your right under miranda which we now know is constitutional in nature using that in vocation of your right as evidence of guilt in the argument was that clearly what was asserted by the prosecutor it wasn't and the record is pretty clear on this although  appellant claimed that the prosecutor mentioned this statement in opening and closing he didn't mention that statement that we both agree is the focus of the disagreement here the argument here he didn't mention to the jury in opening or closing that the  invoked his right and wanted to end questioning in response nobody quote but what he what he said but he quoted what he said which is the invocation no he quoted other things that's what this is about he quoted that statement and he quoted petitioners other voluntary statements made to police in opening and closing the prosecutor didn't say that appendix at thirty one for the opening and appendix five twenty three for the closing but he didn't mention the fact that petitioner said i don't want to talk about this anymore it was never mentioned right ok and in his direct of the officer the only further comment on that implication was officer did that include your interview with the suspect and the officers replied it did after playing the video that was that was the only other mention of the fact that the  circumstance had ended and the missouri court of appeals has recognized that this is a sensitive area of constitutional law admitting statements like this but they crafted a rule that deals with it and it's a reasonable application of clearly established federal law and their rule is that if this if a defendant agrees to talk with police the state is entitled to admit evidence that shows how the interview concluded but the state can't admit that evidence where it would lead to a direct inference of the defendant's guilt and that's simply not what happened in this case the last statements that the defendant made to police were in response to their questions do you know how the victim got his injuries obviously it's possible that the defendant knew how the victim got his injuries without causing them and in fact that was the theme of his entire defense case defense counsel got up in the first words out of his mouth an opening statement where the nobody in this case will be able to tell you how the victim got his injuries and at the end of the evidence you'll you'll say to yourself we don't know how the victim got his injuries that was their entire argument guilt he could have known or not known how the injuries happened without having caused them and and that's a reasonable application in an otherwise unclear area of federal law and simply that's just what this court requires from the missouri court of appeals even if they're incorrect even if this court would reach a different conclusion on direct appeal then the missouri court of appeals can still be upheld as long as their interpretation of the federal law question is reasonable and i think that this court's case all it shows that it is reasonable now even in that case i mentioned fields versus sleepily where this court found that and again is that in your brief i don't think it's proved in either case but it was part of the defendant it found error instead in the prosecutor highlighting and questioning why he didn't say more at the end of his interview so simply playing the statements without further comment wasn't found to be error in fields and us versus reader which is in our brief situation because the defendant wasn't mirandized but when he ended the interview saying you know what you guys think i should do maybe i should get a lawyer when he entered the interview in a conversation about invoking his rights this court found nowhere under to oil but even if the missouri court of appeals erred it's a very high standard for overturning their judgment when they also concluded that the error wasn't it was a harmless error under the circumstances in a review of how in hades corpus case where the state court has already made the harmless analysis the standard is even higher and this court will analyze that under the coat substantially injurious effect standard which was announced and correct versus abramson that applied to federal habeas corpus cases and actually practiced is very similar to this case and brecht was also a doyle case the supreme court considered whether or not the statements were substantially injurious where the defend the prosecutor had admitted both premer and and post miranda statements against the defendant and commented on them repeatedly throughout the trial this supreme court found that in the face of the other evidence as well as the fact that some of the statements were properly admitted that there was no substantially injurious effect on the jury and up held the state court's decision now  similar the comments that were admitted by the defendant several of them were unquestionably properly admitted his statements after being mirandized his silence after being mirandized before he reinvolved his rights were properly admitted statements against him and there was substantial other evidence of his guilt there is testimony that he was along with the victim for a period of time that he was closed in a bedroom with the victim and the victim could be heard crying that the mother and father had changed the victim's diaper not seen any injuries shortly before dropping him off at the house with the defendant that a witness saw him coming out of the bedroom with the victim's blood running down the victim's leg the defendant's shirt was off and he told the witness don't tell anyone substantial evidence of the defendant's guilt and the other statements that were admitted against him were clearly properly admitted and if we think about the prejudice in the terms of where the interview tape would stop it's hard for the defendant to argue that there was any additional prejudice from stopping the tape after he said that's what this is all about and was silent for ten seconds before he said i don't want to talk anymore what would be the difference of the jury seeing the entire interview ending that way instead of his statement i don't want to talk anymore under arrest at the time or that his right to silence could be used against him so i don't think factually that that case necessarily applicable a couple of other supreme court cases that respondent cited to a standard i just want to point out on that the court also has review that the application of federal law in that situation either under the twenty five fifty forty one or twenty two or fifty two whether that for an issuance of the writ thanks very much her own thank you for your argument the case is now submitted and we will take it under consideration