publicized homicide cases in the last twenty five years in michigan and there's no claim being made today and no claim that was ever made that mr grant was not criminally responsible for both the death of his wife and the dismemberment of a body was a trial was due to the degree of what homicide had occurred in this case and that's why his statement was so critical to the decision the jury had to make in this case the second point i want to make is something that every time i bargained this case it's been misconstrued and it was misconstrued in judge lawson's decision in the district court there is no claim being made either today or anytime in this case that a defendant where there was an agreement between the defendant and the police no interrogation because it was in this case that the defendant cannot on his own his or her own voluntarily and knowingly waive agreement reached that the defendant can on his or her own initiate voluntarily initially say i no longer want to be part of the group i want to disavow that agreement had mr grant post custody when he was arrested taken into the emergency room had he immediately told the police i know i want to talk to you i want to make a statement and they would respond if we need to contact your attorney if you said that no i'm sorry i want to make a statement away my right to counsel waive my right to remain silent i want to make a statement that would have been absolutely fine it would have been no problem at their point that's not what happened here just as the defendant in the brewer case it's a defendant in the b sitting in the back of the patrol car driving through iowa back to where he was going to go to be in custody and he had spoken up and he had said to the police officers in the front seat i want to tell you what happened i want to i did kill this girl i want to tell you where her body is and the police officers would have said i'm sorry we're not allowed to talk to you and he would have said i so want to talk i want i want a way that here that presumably following your initial concession  that he didn't do that the attorney backed out of the agreement in a sense by saying i no longer represent it isn't that your if that is the position the prosecution took and the police that when had given the information to the police through answered mr grant's family where they could probably find him in northern michigan he was appearing on local detroit t v that didn't make any sense you know the fact that what happens here and tell me if i'm misstating or overstating it is that first you know the guy is in emergency room intensive care is during a certain period of time so nobody's going to be calling any lawyers during that time and they say you know when he says i want to talk to grime  uses you know grime isn't representing you we'll get you another lawyer you know what are they supposed to have done at that point well that seems to be the proper thing to do they were you know they wait till these relatively compas and after he gets out of the emergency room and they say you know your guy says he's not your lawyer we'll get you another lawyer i agree there is no edwards mrs arizona erin this is what the police did the police received that when you just said there was no time to contact counsel that's absolutely untrue mr graham had been in custody for more than three hours prior to mr graham going on television the police captain wicker the police officers readily knew that he was in custody they had one of their own officers there prior to the arrest with him in the hospital yesterday in the hospital yes but what that that's not really was needing that no no no that's right but back here in back mcallen county hundreds of miles away the police officers who had made the agreement knew he was in custody there was no doubt about the fact that they knew i was in custody from the minute he was arrested because their own people were up there if they had done what i take it you say they should done which was call mr grime immediately yes and say we got your man he's in the emergency room what do you want to do mr graham would have said if he testified to he would have told them don't talk to him i'm going to drive up there and  was still said i don't want to represent in the future but he would have been the person driving from a calm county to the hospital matter investigating officer he would have gone to mr grannis he testified and told him two things do not talk to the police which you've been telling  the number two i don't want to represent you but i'm going to get you a new attorney and then listen to a new attorney so don't do anything to have new counsel had that happened the state would never would have made the constitution protects the right to enforce the agreement that you'll speak to counsel for get these circumstances where counsel resigns what are we talking i mean were random the requirements miranda and edwards were met here were they not ost breezily agreement yes but i mean that so your only issue is you said you'd call counsel and you didn't but they met the they complied with miranda and words the calling of counsel obviously we don't even think about counsel having resigned maybe let's think about it that way that's your only issue here and what part of the constitution does apply only let me start with one thing the agreement in this case was not between captain wickersham and mr graham they were not parties they have no interest in this case the agreement in this case was between the parties the people of state of michigan represented by campaign workers sham and stephen grant represented by gregory that was the agreement there is no personal they have no person on the agreement was made by the police to mr grant through his attorney that we will not interrogate you without notice your account th agreement was breached because even if mr grimes i'm still wondering what where's the sin in that constitutional sin that is the same sin there was in peru or in brewer the police officers knew there was an agreement between the police and the attorneys and the defendant that he would not be interrogated during the car ride between the two cities and i was in the breach that agreement by interrogating the u s supreme court first had to decide that what they called the christian burial speech w and they did and then they had to decide whether or not the fact that the defendant responded to the interrogation which normally can be found to be an implicit waiver of the fifth amendment rights was not in this case and the reason they found that the  response to the interrogation was not a valid waiver was that in fact the police officers were engaged in misconduct by even attempting to interrogate and respect the way you put it as yes not here not so here not here but the fifth amendment right issue here is well mr brewer case even though they talked about the kind of the system and then understand he was in custody subjected to interrogation and then the miranda the fifth amendment right to counsel existed they argued that he did validly waive those by responding to the interrogation and the but the problem in the whole case was the interrogation was impermissible police conduct because there was an agreement we will not and under orders do not question him do not interrogate him we can't and then they said in their offices discussing when they were going to call mr grimes knowing that they had obligated to do that and only when someone walked in and just last thing i want to say before the time so i teach appellate practice a numerous michigan law school and what i tell my students is any time you do an argument in an only tell the court what was done wrong you tell the court what should have been done in this case what should have happened is that when when they saw mr graham attempting to resign and ethically i might add on t v what they should have done they should have called him and said mr brime i know you don't know this because we haven't called you but we just saw  that's the point here you're what happened after the fact was done right what happened before the fact is where the problems your statement about something like they were sitting around deciding whether they should call or when they should call gri finding that the confession was properly admitted was not contrary to in a u s supreme court case no extreme malfunction occurred here there's two different ways you could go about resolving this case you could find number one there wasn't in fact no violation of the agreement itself that's what the state court found and the magistrate judge in his report recommendation said that was not on reasonable determination not based on the testimony the reason there was no violation is the agreement had two parts when the guy's arrested we'll let you know and we won't question i'm without until you have a chance to talk to him and hear they don't ever question him until grime had resigned now keep in mind he's arrested at six thirty in the morning four hours in northway northern michigan he's found barefoot in the park hypothermia possible frostbite he's taken to the hospital he was admitted to the i c u at nine fifteen grimes held his press conference at nine am and said i'm no longer this man's attorney so eventually they get the guy out of i c u they've decided to you know treated him whatever way they can and somebody says did you want to make a statement and that's when he says i want to talk to grime and then they reasonably told a lawyer he was just on t v and said that he's not your lawyer anymore here's a phone what would you like to contact a different attorney this was not police misconduct in the slightest this is got nothing like brewer v williams kind of a scenario where they're taking advantage of a mental hospital patient who's escaped to as  he's a very religious and they use psychology on him in order to get him to spill the beans as it were now counsels in the only case that he's relying on his brewer v williams but there was no reason that you know there was no he's offered a telephone what do you mean are you resigned you're my lawyer you can't reason i am exactly what you now counseled arguing that you know i complied with but when counsel filed an application for leave to appeal in the michigan supreme court this is what he said mr grant acknowledges this case presents a unique situation with no precedent exactly on point and then when he filed a petition they turned around and said oh this is just like brewer view williams but they didn't argue that when it was in front of the michigan  so first off i think there's a strong argument the green light wasn't even violated but assuming argue and all that it was this court can easily distinguish the brewer case there was there was a sixth amendment right of counsel that existed in that case the defendant mr williams had already been arraigned and he had two different attorneys want to have one end of the car trip one of the other end of the car trip in our case there was no six amendment right to counsel there was a fifth amendment right to counsel but the two fifth amendment right to counsel cases were complied with counsel acknowledges miranda and edwards versus arizona work complied with and brewer is not a fifth amendment case so there's really no u s supreme court case that addresses this kind of a factual cases so there just wasn't a brewer type scenario the police went out of their way to try to help the defendant get a different attorney they were trying to get a confession out of me as soon as possible and one other minor point is that you know they found it was charged with first degree murder and was  degree murder and in the opening statement counsel for the defendant said the only question is what kind of homicide occurred here in michigan you have first degree murder second degree murder and manslaughter so best case scenario for grant was the jury would have convicted him of manslaughter but in you know best case for the prosecutor we first degree murder they found second degree murder and it's arguable that his own confession helped him get be convicted of second degree murder instead of first degree murder if that's the case then the admission you know helped him and it didn't hurt him by any stretch and finally if you read brewer the holding does not depend on the police breach of an agreement that is not the basis of the holding in the brewer case instead it's because it's six a member right to counsel had been asserted and was never away he did not waive it and they said by using psychology on this mentally troubled person who had who was very religious that they had sort of coerced him or tricked him into confessing nothing like that happened here in the slightest i can't talk to you i don't you know he wanted to talk to them they said not not not you have to talk to the the whoever the officer in charge and then they the officer in charge there is four hours north and then that's right he was down in mcallen county not northern michigan but so there's a point at which but it's now ski and burger or the two officers involved is that right yes and there was a nurse and and he wanted to make a statement all three of them and all three of them so not would it we can't if you want to talk you got to talk to the officer in charge you get on the phone talk to the officer in charge officer in charge drives four hours during that time he doesn't change his mind and then he's given his miranda rights he signs i'm all away and then he g his confession he wanted to confess and the police really don't engage in any misconduct brewer is clearly  turn on the violation of an agreement by the police so the state would ask this court to find that the district court properly analyze this case or at your adversary when toward the end there we sort of emphasize that it was worker sham who in his view made the wrong decision not to not to call a grime i guess that at six thirty or seven or seven thirty make or sham deposed you have any view on that argument well there was the the evidence you're hearing i don't recall to be honest what he said in that particular reason but the point is to part agreement will let you know when he was arrested and we won't question on without you being there and they didn't arrest didn't question him until many hours after grime had resigned and said i'm no longer representing this fellow and even then they didn't try to take advantage of it and say oh you're a lawyer resign ok talk to me right now no they made him wait four more hours so the officer in charge could drive up there's just no police misconduct there's no violation of the agreement when you consider that the agreement had two parts and the refusal to grant part of the agreement was fulfilled there was no existent circumstances here we talk about the time factor doesn't this was weeks after the homicide the body parts been recovered there was no urgent need to interrogate mr grant so this whole thing about a couple hours and how much time he was in the emergency room that's irrelevant all they had to do was take a term minute phone call how many people wouldn't speak to him three people two officers and and the nurse rights he would when he first when they when they first went to him if he would want to confess and they said and they walked in to him and say you want to talk to us he would have said yes i'll confess but he said i want to speak to my attorney that's point as i said earlier in this case did not occur at the hospital everything the police did at the hospital was fine ok i've never claimed that any of the police officers up there did anything wrong they were under orders from their superiors back in  county to do exactly this but none of those events would have occurred at all had captain wickersham taken two minutes to call mr crime either before or after this alleged resignation and said you should know your client's been in custody for three hours because at that point everything would have stopped everything would have been different because mr group graham would not have resigned  didn't resign till two weeks later he didn't even talk to his client for two weeks after that in fact the day after this alleged resignation they were still sent faxing him documents in a case that they thought he was in the attorney why are they doing that he would have told them as he testified to and as captain wickersham testified to with the hearing he knew that he was in breach he knew the agreement was there he never disagreed they had an obligation to do that he never gave any explanation other then we just haven't gotten around to it yet mr graham would not have resign he was in a hundred eighty different situation here he knew the body been found he knew what had happened he knew that they knew about it i presume that mr grimes would have gone up to him and said no way do you speak to the police i don't want to represent you anymore no we were going to have to but i'm going to get you new counsel everything that happened the hospital would not have happened but for the police have to work a sham intentionally knowingly and voluntarily breaching the agreement to talk to