thirteen and he was sentenced to a maximum term of seventy five years in prison which reflects something a maximum base term of sixty years under the stairs and for murder plus fifteen years as an add on  term is the maximum lives under the fact proven at trial and we raised real issues in the city on the first and second are interrelated arguments pertain to whether the defendant video defendant in this case came about when called murder case they didn't have any good suspects room warm when the two leading detectives in the investigation learned that the defendant had been caught possessing a hot handgun and without question back in his hearing watkins and mcdaniel were part of the murder investigation team that's the case that they hope to solve when they were advised in july two thousand and t which were taken from the autopsy of the store owner who was killed in this case mats the gun was recovered when the defendant was arrested about six weeks before those forensic results were and to complete the and this is the risk you find it on the back these two detectives are that the statute that requires a recording of an interview of an in custody person concerning a murder case was you could still be complied with and also one that even if the miranda rights weren't right when it was in custody that this was not a question first and then warm type of interrogation the fa in the murder for one thing that's totally self certain but more clearly it doesn't have anything to do with the test for whether someone would consider themselves to be you seem to be blurring the lines between two issue seems like you're very well i mean i think you are interrelated i think because the question is the same regarding whether you need to be given miranda or you need to have a videotape because there is n a murder case so this isn't do with what the police think about the person that they're questioning and the slayer case and in this course travis case the court expressed that the police or the police officers don't come into play with regard to the custody question unless that's communicated to the and in that case it would only be if it's communicated that you don't think he is the in a murder case be the corner and if they're not both be on the recording session and the recording session later  you know generate you know them to open up and i think have an implied comment which was to my police defense attorney was this is a normal practice that the police according to the defendant  claimed that they were going to make him go down for this if he didn't tell them what you know and that was part of an on recorded interview with you know just just corey seemed to agree that those words were indications that you're talking about your client somehow the guy and then your client responds that eight thirty six he starts explaining first then you have the wrong name saying it was mark is rather nice and i think you're quite in the logs and when the defendant arrived at the station so his claim was anything walk him interviewed him alone for four to five and then he called for me you know there was there is a new problem with the fact that doesn't in my argument require any looking into the minds of the officers so that's the first prong now the second prong under the recording statute section one of three just to point  can the state by a preponderance of the evidence of overcome to resist presumption of even the recorded interview be inadmissible and there i think it becomes important that you don't have very much to go on because it's the state's burden on your honor section to show that this is a voluntary statement and voluntariness of the statement encompasses everything that happened his being brought from the jail not given now just briefly because we covered the second argument the state makes with regard to the question first warren later tactic than that requires a showing of deliberateness we agree with the people who says lopez miranda and we start over and hope to use that second part but the inference is here can lead to the conclusion that that's what was being done here and that's our second issue if you do not reverse and strike the your review of the ultimate ruling by the trial judges do you know and they had no clue who was involved had no clue who was involved in the true but the thing is he didn't enter an order right and you were correct to point out that the actually the only case number on that motion in limine was the weapons case number right and that's where we had to supplement the record with it because it in the body of it went to both cases so clearly that it was an attempt to surprise t court could pick up on the fact that there were this was an attempt to say we think you're a witness we think they're a suspect we only think they're a witness and we're not turning on the video equipment but then they managed to get the inmate who's in custody and not told that they don't have to answer the questions regarding this food market shooting so it's clear that they're keeping this guy in their custody they're doing this questioning before he resolves this case on monday so they're going to go try and find him and bring him and so he he is in custody and being questioned about the murder of the statute applies for that now i greet just  even though they weren't required yes because the statute talks about the statement opened and he used and it's inadmissible as evidence against the killers so the officers may have had  i agree i agree in terms of the bad faith part of the officers yeah i think with the seeburg i think that