big difference well i really think it does i think it is because it comes from the judge and it doesn't come from the attorney and i think  react to evidence sometime in a kind of a visceral or just kind of a good way but when you break it down of what a jury you know  and the the instruction and since it comes from the court i think it's going to be taking a lot more seriously this thing to education was with face it is kind of problematic there's there's  i moved i didn't even want to look at this guy because you well there was an armed robbery in progress he was very scared he could make a phone call after the events because he was too nervous to to other witnesses do mak but in terms of identification when you are three witnesses and you've only got one hit death's kind of problematic what this was this was not a preamble to any type of plea discussion there was nothing he had to look for some type of minutes of the plane go she she process and for terror that you have to have some offer to plead in exchange for some concession by the state in this case we have a need there we don't have to consist of i'm going to confess or i will confess tantamount to i will plead there is a difference i will say this i don't believe they're  supreme court said you know what would a confession entails and that you know they didn't even consider that to be enough under those circumstances a message you always look to the subjective expectation of the defendant and this case he starts out to him the because it at their planned he's making a mission that he knows something about the arm around mary that he thinks he can exchange some information about this armory and get some type of deal now whether that is a concession of some advance and i don't want to deal bruce it is ok to talk about i'm arrest with this but i have information about something else well there is a touch of that here because what he says at the motion to suppress which is he says we expectation here so in a sense he did show after the fact that there was no subjective expectation for him in terms of this case and i think this is an important circumstance i don't think it's necessarily you know the only circumstance here we don't  him making any sort of agreement on his part in his behalf to plead to this crime to you know want concession to this crime in exchange for that instead he's talking about he was a cigarette and if he gets cigarettes we'll talk bit to the extent that he wants to get a guaranteed deal he wants to talk with the state's attorney but they say no that's not going to happen and what does he do he doesn't stop there he can't possibly have subjective expectation that point that anything is happening indicate anything other than a conversation cooperation just tell him no some details about this that he could claim you know just through himself or somebody else that might be about none of it goes to the direction of pleading guilty to this crime ambitions he doesn't start talking anymore you know is that there's no there's no hostility is not going around he still makes another statement so what this is this is him being loose you know with what he's concerned about but those are independent missions nothing to different that there is no instruction on this but what we do have is we have the defense counsel highlighting each one of the areas every single one of those areas was talked about by the by the defense attorneys and rebut it to some degree by the states attorney so this is very much highlighted to the jurors that this is why you know these are the the things either for or against whether this is a reliable identification and i think under those circumstances certainly can't be more than harmless on full well i do think there's a difference but i think that with the state not arguing against that important and they did not argue that that that those considerations were not important that this that there is officer and that's when he starts to talk about you know what's going on here and what you want me to do in that type of thing his wife when they go to her in to talk to her about and i believe there's a search of the home here they should they talk to her she's very calm to begin with she in these pictures and realizes this is going to be a hard case for him to land and as he does he also makes a phone call to his wife and says you know i've got a stuff on there they're coming you know they were about to search i got her i got a cell phone here you need to get rid of and and when they go to the search her place there's no cell phone on you know these are all incriminating facts certainly after a show but circumstantial but they are they in addition to the idea which was chance you know he's in these photos he says no he's not in there and he wasn't in there then you know six more focused now on picks out one and only and they ask him at trial why she picked that out because it was the router because he saw him and he certainly did not ever say that he didn't see him closely he was only a few feet away he says he didn't end up certain to get closer to see him that's basically what they had put up what he said yes he looked at him he was very focused on him he was scared on he was very close and he was able to not only say that this person weighed two hundred to two twenty which he did was about five or nine which i believe he was five ten or i might have every verse on it but she also picked this person out of the mind up on facial photos only so he was able to do you know give a good description of the spotting type but he also was able to look at the photos and pick the correct person out of twelve folks so you're saying  witnesses he didn't peach them on their ability to identify the when it comes to the defense yes and yes he did try to guess absolutely you know he went to how short a time they had and you know whether they were focused on time and my attorney didn't do an awful given that it was the police officer there's opinion that i was not intoxicated and they gave their experience and they gave while they had an opinion that the attorney should done something more because according to defendant once the officers who are with me know i am intoxicated they have to go further and have some type of process to figure out whether these statements are reliable you can have some participation it shouldn't be much it should be as we said in the fields case and i think it's a good language language that makes sense the state can certainly answer questions that are concrete easily verifiable  verifiable it is exactly what happened on the record that could the state now got into calling the defendant asking you know arguing against the defendant did not call the defense attorney is a witness and so sort it did not merit in any way that the motion to suppress you know with me reconsider it you're some additional considerations none of that was that it was really very much here's what the record which basically and that is what the records show because of course the i said i think that the types of things we would be looking for is the state arguing against this and say you know here's why you know even if we were to look at it now the police officers were credible they were credible because of x y and z they all the other cases cited by the defense and none of those were present here i believe that this fits within the small portion where he can call his distances attorney have an answer a few questions and still said discretion hearing he said i didn't get the state's attorney because we thought we had our guy and they thought they had a lot of disappearance so in other words he understood that proposed deal to