communication as there would have been with someone without a disability this seems like that's language drawn from the regulations of the americans with disabilities act and not essentially directed at the test for a voluntary in  over born at the time of that he spoke so essentially this is a case where there is no classical forms of compulsion or coercion such as threats or promise's physical a testifies that his sister heard form of communication at the time of the end of the questioning defendant had used his hearing aid and spoke in english and spoken word with  where he was not being detained and taken there was no physical or mental abuse and no threats of promises and the defendant never indicated to the police that he was either requesting or preferring to have the assistance of an a case if it were a situation where he had no hearing impairment if that were set aside it was just simply a question and answer session between the police and a criminal suspects who was asked the same questions there wouldn't be any for the court listen to the audio recording however the state tries different conclusions about the nature of that report to defend his claim is that it reflects an extreme difficulty with both understanding and expressing himself i think there was one word victim that he had difficulty expressing anger refuse instances in which she misunderstood things there was one situation where there was a switch in question here when he was being asked about child pornography if that was on his phone and  be related to his decision to speak as he did to the police but simply there was cited below by the defense examples of why there were problems with this question because of those misunderstanding  primarily i think there were a lot of references to several things that were asked in response to questions in which case the interviewers seemed to always repeat the question or rephrase the question they said sometimes the most difficult to happen when there was this the few times we sort of the back and forth one interviewer would say so i ask question and the next question you asked by the other interviewer that seems to be where a lot of difficulty arose exercise in futility sue even ask him what his name was or anything like that if you didn't understand any words so the fact is there was a lot of effective communication going on and it was not an ideal situation but then the question becomes basically on de novo review is that something that requires as a matter of either federal due process or state law voluntar president has not asserted as an independent ground for a sustained judgment i think the defendant does say that if it were a a violation that should be something that is considered in the in the italian circumstances and it's not a situation where the defendant i think there was another case i cited where the defendant wrote eighty eight exclamation etc and said in case consists of the police that he should be provided with an interpreter nothing like that happens here so it's not a situation where he felt he had to confess because he insisted on having an interpreter and those requests when ignored at night and therefore he felt helpless or something there's no testimony or claim that that's what happened  to to to base their argument solely on the defendant's personal characteristics which is like citing the westmoreland case which got back to other arguments where different asco decision and practice and both cases that were with those situations is that a defendant who doesn't have the same level of intelligence as a normal person is more so prone to suggestion and that's what's been recognized by the courts and that's one major problem that doesn't exist with people's hearing parents if if there are i think even the defendant admits that they shouldn't shouldn't be treated the same as someone who is either a child or or who has subnormal where there is no evidence of police over preaching or clear or any sort of course of behavior by a state actor and that's where essentially this should be a matter for the legislature could be the state may objects but doesn't this cuts us off from other people mr figures has been profoundly tough since birth but cut off from other people his entire life i don't think any of us who can here can ever really they can't continue to interrogate him in the absence of his say anything along these lines you don't have to be you know he's sixty two years old he's not a little kid he hears you by the cops about allegations of is why shouldn't he be required to say so i think it would be a good idea if he said so that would that would certainly not hurt things but your question assumes a number of things in the sense that he understands what they're there for that he understands that this is idea what this is all about your article is there a text message that he received from the letter victim's mother indicating the alleged victim's father had made a reporting that the police would be coming to speak with  people because they don't have as much language but they're not of the you know what is the record sure but his ability to comprehend that he didn't graduate high school but that's not the same as it's a let me ask you why doesn't he mention to the police when they were talking to him about this alleged incident when he knew they were going to be coming to talk to him because of the text message so we know he had some understanding of what information was being relayed a forty five minutes inquiry was a discussion about it didn't doesn't the record show the deed the videotape of this interrogation show that he was responding in the context of this is a sex offense involving kids your honor he was responding but we're not sure how much she actually others didn't understand enough to know this was a sex offense involving kids i don't think we can make that determination from this record but i don't know so it was just my mother tongue so i can listen to what people say and if it's we're talking in chinese or greek that might be a little different but how about i don't understand how i don't understand what you're saying what do you what do you in one is provided but that's a separate issue than what we're talking about here which is whether due process concerns under state law or federal law were satisfied enough for voluntariness whether he asked for a sign language interpreter not it's not vulnerable to police suggestion and of course in tactics and when and when when they're when it's obvious that they are vulnerable and when there is obvious that they are communication problems even if he could repeat or perish supposing i also use the word back certain words which is a tactic that people use to appear with it in social conversation that doesn't mean he understood enough to satisfy due process and get people are prone to suggestion that somehow deaf people are not in them and that they shouldn't be treated the same way i mention in my brief that we shouldn't want them all together because they're not the same but the legal principles are in fact the same for purposes of our discussion that i simply know we shouldn't we shouldn't treat people as if they're mentally handicapped but the legal ramifications of having a damaged pathway appearing to the brain and having a damage brain that can understand the information coming through perfectly fine pathway turns out to be about the same you don't understand all the words that are coming at you and that's what's happened in these cases where mentally handicapped people parrot back certain words they're trying to be with it's the same thing you see in alzheimer's patients sometimes they just they attempt to fake members because they want to share with our social interaction and that's because what most people want above all things is to have dignity they want to be accepted and they want to be with with other society and function with hearing people who have all power they develop skills they develop strategies to deal with hearing people at peace hearing people who have power over them in stressful situations that's exactly what we see happening here they should be forgiven forgiven for having failed to do so before there's no legal authority for that point and this court should should reject this court should honor that forgery now on the first state law issue whether there were or voluntary this is this this is a special creature of only law essentially takes miranda from federal law and incorporated into the voluntary yes for for eleanor it applies whether or not under a state law whether or not a round of flies so even though and the state doesn't answer this argument in a convincing way first they can see that that's the law but then in an attempt to distinguish cases we've decided we cited them they make a mistake the first one is and it's a mentally handicapped person the person is this parroting back information they say and the court found the first district i believe found in that case that it's not possible to have knowing intelligent waiver this is clear from the decisions state has agreed with that analysis but then made a mistake in arguing the application of this case sounding case is out of wisconsin and it's a case that you state that it's had on elsewhere  squarely force we don't have any case of these extreme there are not many there is the people versus long decision from this or that seems to imply that the sign language interpreter would be required if there is not exigent circumstance which there wasn't long and so that was excuse but under the spring court cases morgan murdock or nasco this doesn't satisfy your process and the trial courts factual finding that it was blatantly obvious that he was severely more that's what our faces seems what that duty is we're not sure but they have a duty to do more involve generalizations and they were not included in the record in evidence for example for expert testimony so the state's position is that they should be disregarded daniels and his lawyer cited cases involving the knowing and intelligent prong