cameron chief justice of the time of the arizona supreme court and its dissenting opinion the government hangs its hat on invited error and because we don't have before the district court before this court the trial transcript is part of the record but for that portion quoted in the supreme court's opinion the arizona supreme court i urged the court again to grant the motion to expand the record and expand the c e o a certificate of appeal ability but in any event i want to urge that there is not invited error in this case and how do we know that if we turn to the  we have a question by the defense counsel question did he he meaning the defendant say anything else other then quote oh my god and quote end quote why would i do a thing like that and quote after you told him the woman had been murdered the answer is yes question and what did he tell you answer and the answer is in three parts he gives three parts answer he wanted to speak with this family number one and he wanted he thought he wanted an attorney number two and three that he understood what i had read to him meaning miranda your honor i suggest that not just suggest i urge that this open ended question is not invited error in the context of this case in this case the defense moved to suppress any comment by the government as to post miranda claim of counsel that motion was granted and an order and limon a given the prosecutor has a duty to admonish his witness the key witness in the case the investigator  him not to say anything about post miranda claim of counsel well how would you suggest he truthfully answer the question i mean the prosecutor didn't ask the question defense counsel did so how's how's a witness opposed to answer truthfully i think he should answer one and three and turn to the court for guidance and the prosecutor even after the answer is given the prosecutor has a duty given that's in violation of the not might not be that significant so there are it's a prosecutor's fault because the order was against the prosecution he knows and the witness knows or presumably should know from an admonition that it's a violation of the court order so state what he stated the witness with an open ended question could have answered one in three and turn to the court for guidance or perhaps the defense counsel shouldn't have asked an open ended question that invited a response in violation of the court's order and that's the invited error doctrine that the reason it comes up here and he asked the question and a truthful answer to the question causes a violation of the court order so isn't that invited here no your honor it's not because you're not saying the witnesses answer wasn't truthful and you're saying that transgress the court order but that's a different problem the defense counsel is perfectly capable of asking a question that wouldn't have required an answer to be truthful to violate a court order but the answer is truthful within a context of the order if the witness at modest as he took me by the prosecutor turns to the court for guys or the prosecutor then stance or or the witness can say i cannot answer that question because of the course order now we have a sidebar and we get it resolved i'm not sure why the witness is opposed to keep track of the court's order more than the defense counsel as the witnesses primary job is to answer the questions not to serve as a referee defense counsel of pain disorder defense counsel should ask questions compliant with that the order is against the prosecution it's the duty of the prosecutor to make sure his witnesses stand wine with that order i don't feel that i have any authority for that proposition far broader than anything i've ever heard i think it's think it's commonsense i'll be happy to do a stop and i think a common stance is for a defense counsel that obtains a motion in limine a to ask questions that don't require a witness to decide for himself whether he's complying with a motion in limine i certainly can't disagree with that but if we have prosecutors who willy nilly with a cavalier attitude just accept the court's order don't say anything the witnesses we have in common mistrust what we have then obviously the prosecutor has a duty when the court orders tend to keep the evidence out the prosecutor i comply with the order it is not the prosecutor's duty to teach every witness that the defense counsel might ask a stupid question but you comply with a court order if the defense counsel job to ask questions that don't require a witness to violate the order  likely reading of the law well assuming for the moment that who witness should not have many passing reference if i understand it nobody actually underscored out at any point in the trial the fence counsel very carefully didn't get up and say oh i want to motion to strike because he didn't want to underscore and so we have one one a dead bang liability case and there's your chance oh well poor guy i hate to see him get sent to jail you know we can't figure out we can't decide hung juries are equivalent to close cases are back to the question of what is it about this case what are the facts in this case that should lead to meeting the test of substantial and injurious effect or influence on the verdict one of the factors is whether or not the defendant testifies sciri testified in his trial that's a factor because if we have evidence of a claim to the attorney post miranda then imply adly defendant has made up his story with the help of his counsel but that's what the case to say when i look at the fact or so i was just following up in response to the question of the court concerning those factors i come back to frankly the paradox the i face in this case and the paradox is if the court is to find invited error and it appears that the court is leaning more than leaning in that direction then we come right back to who calls that air calls there when we come right back to an effective assistance of counsel by the court upholding invited error the court in a