treated the defendant exactly as he would have treated a twenty five year old with a long criminal record he this is a fine it was not a twenty five year old a long criminal record this is a sixteen year old boy who had one semester of high school with poor and failing grades who had a single contact prior contact with the police for a curfew violation about a week before this interrogation an want an adult he had him arrested in the afternoon at two forty five in the afternoon he sit in a room an interrogation room alone for four hours to contemplate his predicament he was was eventually interrogated finally when he did enter the room for hours at the defendant have him put in their he interrogated fine for three more hours and during that time obtained a overall statement and a written this officer actually testified five times in this case because there were three trials a post conviction hearing and then this hearing that the suppression hearing all all of his testimony was concerning his taking on these statements yet it was only this time they haven't even mentioned his status as a trained juvenile detective and we don't know what that means what we do know is that is that there is world the statute actually doesn't really define what a trained juvenile officer supposed to be or what they're supposed to do and there's actually this right now a split authority in the paul court about that but even when you look at that split in authority and you look at the appellate court decisions that say that the a train or the juvenile officer needs to do very little to help a defendant in an interrogation even those cases would not allow for the train juvenile officer to be the lead interrogator which is what vaccinations he was in this case so for all intents and purposes in this case there was no train juvenal off where there was a train to an officer there but there was no nobody acting as a that if the person who's taking the statement is not cannot be the juvenile officer he you know the juvenile if there was another juvenile officer there acting as a juvenile officer then and whatever that means and i don't think this is this cas sort of more of a neutral character just there to observe and to make sure that the juveniles rights basic rights are to are respected go both lines of cases have who has as somebody other than the interrogator and somebody who is there  counsel on cross examination but yeah wearing two hats was and i know i do know that the judge also used that that phrase and i think that that goes to the problem with having him being the juvenile officer that it's it's essentially a conflict it's it's not you're not a neutral party when you're there being the person who is trying to get the statement out of the the juvenile and and what all the appellate courts agree on  interpreted as that is you know is all up in the air and make that critic that could have been in all likelihood that's probably is what happened he probably did say something that that he that was misinterpreted it in him the grandfather apparently he testified that the grandfather never asked him to see the fund and and so he felt that he didn't need to do it and he did and he didn't tell the do not tell the defendant that the grandfather was the grandfather take any affirmative action rather than just being there but if you record the record doesn't this does not show anything other than him being there and apparently having a conversation with me since he about this case o ther than the fact that he did he apparently did not explicitly asked to be in the room we don't know what the conversation was about i believe and i think that on that topic the the appellate court has has issued several being there really is is the most important thing that a concern adult could do and if you look at knox and the concern about that case show was there did not explicitly ask  to see the minor but was the course still found the confession to be involuntary marvin's am the opposite happened where the where the parent said to the police officers at their house i want to be there and then didn't of the confession so my question to you is this your argument does it stem from a violation of the juvenile code statute the idea of concerned adult or  judge initially denied the post invasion fish and alleging ineffective assistance of counsel the appellate court reversed that finding so so essentially granting the post conviction petition finding ineffective assistance of counsel and then as a remedy had had actually reversed for a new trial finding ineffective assistance for failing to file to the file motions to suppress so what we all we have here is basically the believe probably did make some comments one denying the motion suppress i believe really did he said he had concerns at first with it but they had been alleviated by the testimony at the motion to suppress so position the failure to allow the juvenile to confer with a parent or in this situation a grandparent renders a confession automatically involuntary is that your position is not is that's not my position my position is my position is essentially they have to do something and the easiest thing would here would have been to bring in a grandparent you have to do something to accommodate the fact that it's a juvenile and if you could have done it could have been a real juvenile officer it could have been a videotape which you know now it is required and would have happened would have happened if this it happened in the last five years this whole thing we're about on tape and you could have seen but there has to voluntary or not you look at the circumstances of it what authority is there to say that that includes doing something not just looking at what happened in this individual instance to determine whether or not all the facts there's considered in fact even the apparent example they gave earlier i mean g a o talked about it that is one circumstance you would take into account right is first determin scase is in the united states supreme court and be diverse in north carolina there's just this general idea that juveniles are different from adults that that when when you when you interrogate an adult  prick like interrogation went in this case it may be constitutionally acceptable but it's not benign it is something that is these are tactics that are meant to that are meant to extract the confession now someone who is not really that that one acts could be what is now required by statute as a videotaping that the interrogation if you have a videotape interrogation and you can see he didn't do anything and that that would be unduly coerced into a juvenile and you can see that the juveniles basic rights are respected that could be that act that would be enough videotape in this case there was one taking taken at the very end of the of the  supposed to be on tape and i knew that wasn't the case that in two thousand and one that's why i didn't do it but but if you had that that would be enough where you said something interesting in response to the question this of that would be  and so is that determination them as any act that does it can can the arrogant be made yeah there's an act in this case short of videotaping so therefore it's not enough i mean how do we quantify what's  law and then if the answer to that question is you look in the facts facts and circumstances of the individual case why are we right back to square one where we look at the facts and circumstances of the end of the individual case to determine those are really three through the three specific things that you could that are you know there are actually over in the juvenile court act that are considered important factors by a by this court and and you could you could start there so it wouldn't so unless there's something so systemically on toward about that way of proceeding of which i'm unaware then this is the posture we have and the parties have essentially consented to that honor my opponent's argument boils down to the notion that the police not only must collect only voluntary confessions but that they must also do something affirmative to express regard for the miners status as a juvenile this court has never required that and that kind of requirement would cut against the notion in this court's case in geo and the u s supreme court's decision  toward cases this court held that there is no suppression remedy for violations of at least a predecessor version of the juvenile court act that included a parental notice provision and a juvenile officer provision and there was no videotaping statute at the time of this confession but somehow my opponent is suggesting that one of those three things needed to be done and his notion that we need to rely on videotape first your honor this is the concept of voluntariness itself which appears to be personal to this subject who is actually waiving rights and confessing conceptually it seems odd that something that that totally unaware of could effect voluntariness and that is the logic of the morning against her buying decision and also comports with the way that an ordinary usage we understand the concept of voluntariness and it provides a neat limits that voluntariness doesn't become a catchall that permits very simple it courts to constitutionalized certain best practices for police generally but in people versus the clean isn't this court called in terms of no problem at all your honor the mcauley test or the macaulay rule rather is a narrow state specific rule rooted in illinois history and it really applies only to that situation and in the hunt case last month this court reiterated that macaulay doesn't displace the ordinary miranda framework it simply applies a specific narrow rule and the concurrence in that case also noted the specificity of the fact now in macaulay that will was derived in part from the enforceable right to an attorney if you request one but at the time of the one nine hundred seventy constitution there was no positive law requirement that if a minor asks for a concern as an interest if you go officer and ward of the idea of having an adult present by not telling the defense and suggest into the grand father that he could come in so what's the purpose of having those ideas and those rules present if it's not going to be something that we use in a involuntary as well to be clear yonder in the absence of an adult is a factor to consider that's something that the court would have to discuss in any case where it's reviewing voluntariness most likely the younger the defendant or that less capacity the defendant appears to have the more important  to have a concern to adult in the room and certainly if there is something vaguely threatening to a minor that happens in the interrogation room the presence of a concerned adult might alleviate that and that might be relevant in that respect the juvenile officer question is a little more complicated your honor and as my opponent has noted there's some confusion in the case law about what exactly is required of juvenile officers now there are some hints in the juvenile court act itself in the  definition section section one dash three sub seventeen the juvenile court act does define a juvenile officer or juvenile police officer as someone who has been so appointed by the local police authority and who has completed some form of training in accordance with state standards i'm not sure quite what the specifics of those state standards are but if there was any problem with detective machines he's testimony that he was trained certainly on cross examination defense counsel could have a listen at that and although it's true that the state has the initial burden of producing evidence of voluntariness once a prima fascia case of voluntariness is made the burden shifts to defendant to that and so under reagan richardson and that burden shifting regime it was really defendant's burden to question mission ski further about what that training entailed and is that the kind of  approach you think that we should take rather than approach we've taken in do we need to overrule g a o we need to get you know your honor in g a o can be left entirely intact in part because again there are probably hypothetical circumstances in which the presence of a juvenile officer may well ameliorate other circumstances and the absence of a juvenile officer may well be something worth discussing but if there's nothing that that particular juvenile officer would have needed to do to cure any problems in the interview room then there's really no need now additionally i want to press back on the notion that a juvenile officer needs to hold himself out as some kind of neutral representative the child of a juvenile police officer who is trained in the ways of interrogation  minors presumably would be better at framing questions and it's actually appropriate to have someone with the right training asking the questions and i'm a little worried about the situation where someone holds himself out as the child's advocate but who's also a police officer because they're that the minor may place undue reliance on the juvenile officer or may think that the juvenile officer its presence is a reason to not invoke a right to counsel o officer do anything at all to accommodate that was your honor his training surely played into the questioning but i recognize that there was nothing specific that he did to express additional regard for the minors status on the other hand as compared to adults the minor was at the station a relatively short period of time we often a substantially longer interrogation sometimes creeping up on twenty four hours i believe that under the totality of the circumstances which your honor can review de novo it's ok to look at the actual amount of time and not merely rely on some of those in artful statements by the trial judge but in overall under g o this confession is surely voluntary i'd like to return for just a moment to the juvenile officer question there additional problem with demanding that a juvenile officer act as a kind of neutral figure advocate for the child and that's that you may have the perception of a good cop bad cop routine by the judge the minor defendant so for instance if the lead question or asks a question that the juvenile officer thinks might be inappropriate and says no no you don't have to answer that and then rephrases that i think that begins to create a kind of good cop bad cop atmosphere so although the laws uncertain about what exactly a juvenile officer should do this is not a good case in which the court should adopt the proposition that a juvenile officer is under an affirmative obligation to act as either a neutral party or an advocate for the minor now additional factors that feed into the voluntariness here are again that defendant was sixteen years old three years older than the defendant in cio unlike the defendant in geo his interrogation was finished before the middle of the night and again he received clear warnings he stated that he understood them he gave coherent chronologically sensible answers he expressed no confusion no fear  and he did not request an adult and even if the court were under cio and richardson and morgan to assign some weights to the decision not to affirmatively in fights defendant's grandfather in the room that's not enough to are going to a lot of appellate court decisions on this topic and they have been a whole lot of them were discussed in the margin decision none of those none of those decisions say that a room with somehow undermined the the the voluntariness of the minor because the minor might might take take it the wrong way i think that that's really a foreign idea to do this lying case and i don't think that that i don't think really think that that's that's that's really true i mean it would simply have been somebody there to make sure that juveniles rights are respected that's the point of having the juvenile officer there and all the cases are are in agreement on that so i would say that a good observation though wasn't to have the neutral or slash advocate the juvenile officer there even if not is the interrogator was it a  pretty good observation mr becker that that might lead to some false assurance or whole me can you see the situation where the interrogator asked the question and the juvenile officer not do as a neutral as a neutral party even you know what is there to do is to say when when the detective says you know i know you were involved in this shooting but i don't think you're such a bad guy maybe you're just a getaway driver he might there's a case where we need to get in to and find what the juvenile officer is supposed to do if the record shows on the basis of the record that there's nothing here to indicate that the confession is anything but voluntary then we have to look at some outside factors the parent or grandparent being there and how that backs and and mr becker that are we have to say what the absence of the juvenile officer actually has to do has to do with the voluntary this doesn't that require us then to determine or do you find that the role of the juvenile officer in a case like this other than taking it into consideration as far as the question of voluntariness because it seems to me you're asking us to find a confession not voluntary based upon the fact that the grandfather was out there and the juvenile officer did nothing right well i i well i do think you probably require  what is being neutral knowing that none of his rights were violated or does it mean going a step further saying no you don't answer the question is that not advocating well you know the juvenile court act requirement june fourth act is that they actually go out and try to contact concern adult and make them present so and of course you know n g o s that are said if you don't if they didn't do that then that would not necessarily run or a confession because the officer didn't believe that there was a concern the dog had good reason to believe there was no concern at all out there for him to contact so so i do think that so yes they would have to if they were there if the wants your arms have further questions that's that you were reversed the full court thank you thank you case number one one two three six two people versus murdoch has taken under advisement his agenda number two