was well i think i need a lawyer because of the time mr roberts attempted to invoke his right to an attorney whereas his response to it was this is an equivocal cation i need to clarify what he's asking for and at that point reyes fail to re roberts replied well i was more involved than i previously revealed and that's when gray is began asking what do you mean by norm how how closely are we to this i'm sorry in the invocation of who because of fear intimidation lack of linguistic skills or writing of other reasons will not clearly articulate their right to counsel although they actually want to have a lawyer present but the primary protection afforded suspects subject  custody in this particular visit as i recall was occasion because you like the service subpoena and if i had arrested for the other crime it would have gone to his house to serve the subpoena so this is much more in the nature of a it was your client who said well i was a little more involved than i told you before and i think the natural reaction of there would be to say not oh you better not talk to me you need a lawyer leaving aside the police officers motivation or what do you mean because for the past several months we've been dealing with you when you've been helping you out these other things and you're our main witness and now you're telling me you're the guy what's going on here is that really the occasion for for treating him as if he was being arrested and brought into custody  completely agree that until that moment ray's had no reason to believe mr roberts was anything other than suspect but he certainly knew that mr roberts was involved in that robbery which became a robbery murder because mr roberts had told him that all along i was privy to the creep planning stage and when mr robert said i don't want to testify rob grant's was within his rights to say well why not but then mr roberts said i think i need own lawyer and then he said i'm more involved than i previously revealed seems who's gotten miranda warnings needs to be given them again because they're stale now their words whether the two warnings given the prior day are stale and in a political seems to me a central issue in th case at least you know apart from the request whether it was a request of some quick or not those are really to me distinctly analytical issues and the first issue which i really would appreciate hearing your position on is under under a my recollection is we have several precedents that deal with like how long it was whether it was a day before or more than that and it's also ok being norway which talks about whether there's an appreciable time in between the the warnings and that in that case holds that  how long was the time and was was the questioning the prior day on a different crime and all those things relate to this issue i think yes no i agree on the only confusion was whether i had somehow and whether or not the advisement was stale it was almost a day old maybe stale maybe not but it was in relation to a completely different crime and a category of crime so far less than the robbery murder that went on for special circumstances rob cocking about a different crime but i thought there's precedent from the supreme court that miranda is not that specific now police are investigating one crime and they give someone miranda warnings and then they to give relief we have to we would have to conclude that the application of the standards that term and by the supreme court are objective leon reasonable that is correct your honor and i don't believe that there can be any claim in this case into consideration the fact that from february of october one thousand nine hundred four this detective had an ongoing relationship with a person known to him to be are ostensibly to be a witness to a murder that there were numerous conversations between them there was an unquestionably valid miranda waiver in the and as i say there followed from that a long standing relationship in which they were regularly in touch with each other and in which it was contemplated and understood that antonia roberts would testify against the three alleged perpetrators of this robbery murder and the testimony is also clear that when the detective walked into that  cool i also pointed out correctly not incorrectly as the reply brief alleges that there was a second statement or the statement is either i think i need a lawyer and or maybe i need a lawyer well i think i need a giving a lawyer when he says well i think i need a lawyer an objective leon reasonable application of davis my best response is that that's not all that he said and i just want to finalize that point your honor because i mean if i says the statements are both in the trial record at one twenty six and one thirty and one forty seven we have statements and a finding that false statements are made but let me get to your point as to whether or not the statement i think i need a lawyer is good enough so the question is that the end of the day under a supreme court precedent that i would submit certainly favors that responded in this situation but regardless under supreme court precedent was it was that objective that that interpretation is not reasonable particularly in light of davis versus united states i would i would also point out i should have frankly expanded my exits in this regard because i could have provided court at the end of the hearing because the judge there over several pages reviews his interpretation of the evidence which of course involves necessarily factual findings including the finding that the s includes the term maybe i need a lawyer and finds that under those circumstances and in light of the relationship between this and the detective that that in his view miranda warnings were not required was there anything is there anything in the record in the findings about the inflection or two boys i understand those circumstances i don't recall stressed they stressed i think it might sound more more problematic for him is that his scenario is fundamentally inconsistent with the physical evidence in the case judge gould in other words by any of his scenarios one doesn't understand we give them all the the finger prints on the testimony of the of the guard who observed him literally acting out the crime while he was in custody for the for the gratification of the fellow inmate and i think the under that