twenty one hundred twenty four money on behalf of mr rodriguez if you want to this is a very simple case and what is alarming about it frankly is that no state court no judge for and i'm not you know to be honest with you when i first got the case i looked i look to see where it is where they say they seized interrogation and there was never a season of the int his gang tattoos about whole bunch a host of other factors a came in that the prosecutor was able to use to get a conviction here you know the california california court of appeal here not only fail to recognize or the trial court for that matter not only failed to recognize they initial violation or the or the more apparent violation if you will but went ahead and said well he initiated contact what does that is him business card and said give us a call if you want to talk further about the case and he says that mr rodriguez at that time seemed like he was thinking about it and he said ok i'll talk so they broke him down outside now there's a some contention as to where that happened whether with outside of the juvenile hall or inside of the juvenile hall adding other tech to says no it was the other way around you don't want a factual discrepancy here if you will you're out of what came out at tri suppress this and heartbeat we're not the california court of appeal if we were sitting there looking at this record we'd say no there was definitely a mistake there on federal habeas yes your honor and so the facts have been found against you in some serious ways this one included and the one that he you know because the courts found that he initiated not the other way around and then there's this long distance between the badgering on the videotaped record where they keep going after him if you know this guy even while the person you shot was the girlfriend and all that sort of stuff there's distance and time before he actually to reinitiate contact fourteen days later just a benchmark fourteen and there's a reason for that frankly i'm here three hours this is soon for a moment that what the detective detector rivera at trial says that i gave him i gave mr regas my card because he asked because here in case i want to talk to you he didn't say i want to talk you he says give me a card in case i want to talk and he says here's my card we're going to turn the case over to the district attorney's office tomorrow and he three hours the separation between the initial and a second interrogation those three hours he was he remain in custody under the supervision of the same detectives detective initially said at the suppression hearing point of true two five four d two which is the are reasonable determination of the facts is for size before these kind of setting john are and what about what about the fact that there was never any analysis of whether mr rodriguez are the only analyze the first element which is well he initiated contact assumed that to be true even didn't go further and say did he voluntarily knowingly intelligent  severe doubts about the credibility confession any way you look at it you respect for your honor we have to come to the same result and that is that this confession was obtained in violation of miranda edwards in particular and other evidence they didn't consider mr rodriguez is mental capacity they didn't consider the fact that a percipient witness a second detective had said over and over again that  the contact didn't consider detected rivera's they said in the factual background i never considered his statement that i gave him a card and said i'm going to send this over to the d a s office tomorrow then he considered any of that and they came they just said oh yeah and when you look at the court of appeals opinion when they're saying that they seize interrogation without any qualifications whatsoever and then you come and look at it from look at the same factual you have to wonder what they were thinking and do and do we have the version of the interrogation videotape that was played at trial i wasn't sure we had it in our record here and you know if we do you want to the court asked for that videotape and it was sent to court you're sure it was but was that what was i was an suppression hearing or at the trial that was at the trial that was emitted here's the interesting part of it the court when the when the court decided to admit the videotape additions or the int gation the court said and i quote the court takes a break goes and talks to other judges in fact judge ito the judge on the order simpson case and says that that that in fact it was part of the same interrogation and the jury sees that they saw the whole thing is what you're saying it's not just the fortunes of law they said that i thought it was redacted it wasn't redacted it should have been redacted frankly but you take out the part where he talked about his record which was a battery and on school grounds but they didn't they talk about the rap sheet so the full video is what the jury saw as far as i know you want her in fact after the video was shown to the jury the defense counsel of jackson says well you know part of that should have been reacting on or there admitted as evidence and he makes a host of admissions in that video too he puts himself at the crime scene on the california court of appeal says well no he didn't made no admissions that's absolutely false he puts himself at the crime scene he puts himself with the  introduced at trial to i'm done with i was with relied on heavily by the prosecutor in showing that he apparently had that he got the tattoo because he murdered someone because in  culture there was a video of that that was actually played yes or not only the video transcript which was not part of the evidence but it was given to the jury to follow so they had the video and the transcript and the initial part where you talking about his tattoo he's talking about his gang affiliation when all they knew at that time keep in mind one of the detectives all they knew at that time was that husky was the shooter so they verify all of that then they read him his miranda rights in a very casual way if you will and the detectives were already setting up the prosecution's closing argument by arguing with him about when he got that tattoo because the murder had occurred about two months ago and he was saying they were saying no that's arrested the shooting happened every twenty third he was arrested the next night he was arrested next morning for a probation violation because he went to a wall from his school he wasn't functioning correctly he you know he went to a wall in school and he was  so he had basically no time so when there was a motion for a new trial about the tattoo itself about the prosecutor bringing it out the judge says well he could have gotten it while he was in custody people get city hall with that is there was no evidence that he ever got this doctor in custody there's a whole bunch the stuff going on here but the more important thing here is that any every case that i've looked at from the ninth circuit in the supreme court on every angle that i've looked at this case comes to the same conclusion and that is that not only government good morning may please the court deputy attorney general ryan smith for respondent mike mcdonald your honors this case involves two distinct excuse me two distinct interview separated by time location and circumstance even assuming that there was the there was a miranda violation at the first interview the that violation did not render petition petitioners confession or statement inadmissible or  or involuntary as a california court of appeal reasonably found there was no causal connection between the first interview and the confession given by petitioner at a later time garvin versus farman it's two fifty eight f third nine fifty one and it was this court in two thousand and one and is almost the exact same fact pattern where the in that case the petition r immediately requested an attorney there she was given marina rights immediately requested an attorney they continued questioner for forty five minutes later on while the petitioner was in prison she initiated contact with the officers and stated that the she wanted to go ahead and speak to the officers and get it off her chest about what had happened and she had committed the murder in attempting to rob or former boss the ninth circuit found this court found that the trial the california courts of appeal the california court's decision was not contrary to an unreasonable application supreme court precedent they said that there was a there was not a causal connection between what happened first and it happened second so that case comes after collage how his time was there in that case between the two in that case was actually three days and in the know understand this case or story hours but like it in related like fourth amendment cases like siebert you know the talking like five or ten minutes immediately after and this is three hours petitioner had time to think about what was going on he was transferred to another facility he was now at it the eastlake juvenile facility when he said he wanted to talk to the officers you know going to things it's hard for me is when somebody asks for an attorney why not give them an attorney i mean in this day and age with all the modern conveniences we have it would be so easy to let him face time with a lawyer for long enough to just get a little bit of legal advice but this idea that all he did was assert his right to remain silent and we can't question you and you have certain right to remain silent he asked for something that the detectives just told him he was entitled to you have the right to an attorney and he says great i want an attorney and instead he gets driven around they buy him lunch they take him all over the place and i don't want lunch i want in the tourney but nobody's even commenting on the fact they never gave him access to a lawyer correct your honor and i mean i don't know if it's the officers responsibility to take the responsibility at that point time to actually find him counsel at that what he regard as their responsibility to stop questioning and hemant to stop threatening him which they didn't do correct i mean your honour's obviously the detectives made a mistake after he asked for counsel when they said he had you know easy his girlfriend was was a want to got murdered correctly there was nothing that came after that as far as a statement by the petition at that point in time but you're correct he lay should have stopped but they immediately stopped right out of that they didn't continue to badger him at that point in time or imply course of techniques to make him keep talking at that point in time they did right after that violation they stopped and they were processing petitioner and to be arrested they took him over to parker to be fingerprinted he was brought back to the station he was treated well he was given water food asked to use the restroom was he was in a he was in a holding but that same like in the garden case where she's actually in prison at that point time when she comes back and says she wants to speak to the to the officers you know they go to eastlake facility yeah i know there is a little discrepancy as far as who offered the card or whether petitioner asked for the card but there's no supreme court precedent that says offering a business card isn't reinitiate of contact to to make a bright line rule that ever found that he made a knowing voluntary intelligent waiver of his right to counsel only that he arena initiated on his own that's the only finding we have we're talking about a fourteen year old kid here too as who was born in yes i mean his age obviously does play a factor into the trick the circumstances but immediately when petitioner stated that he wanted to speak to them after the card was exchange the detective rivera told him you indicated to us that you did not couldn't didn't want to speak just because you wanted to speak to an attorney you should speak to an attorney and then after the fact if you still want to talk to us please talk to  if he were they were the people that could help him out this what they did is shawn and they did say things certain things you're telling me this is an unnecessary expansion police at foothill than i but they were having a lot of trouble with it then i found that there was a guy on reno selling these the feeling that you know i'm dealing with someone who is telling me what my rights are and and  because he knew there was a lot of stolen art in that house and she said you have a search warrant no we can't come in then he said before i go then i just read looks like our court and it seems like the state court from my quick read relied on the fact that this was a sophisticated defendant seems like both of those things are not true in this case and are pretty key differences aren't they i will respect for your honor no  the defendant the petitioner in this case although he's fourteen years old you know i mean i don't know if you actually watch the video he's calm he's able to communicate effectively with the detectives he was able to understand the academic level of  have seventy five or six years something like that you don't he's these these detectives are pros i mean i was a prosecutor for twelve years i know the homicide detectives they're great at what they do and this is a double team right out of the textbook like judge purgason said and there's nothing wrong with that as long as you abide by the restrictions that  there under miranda and edwards and so we're not criticizing the them we're saying they did their job great but did they comply with the legal protections here well chris i understand your concern your hono s and i agree he's fourteen years old but my the point i was trying to make was that he did understand that he did not have to speak that he could talk to an attorney and he had invoked that right he later after being told again that hey i want to talk to you when the detectives told him you know you already said you didn't want to talk to us we can't talk to you until you speak with attorney speak with one first and then come back and if you still want to talk to us we'll talk to you and he decided to do so how is it supposed to speak to an attorney when no one is giving him an attorney well you know what you said i got an attorney in the other room go talk to him and then if you want to talk to us talk to us the kid says i want to talk to a lawyer you know hours later after two trips to other locations no once provided him with a lawyer and you know he sees what my last best opportunity to a void adult prison is might be gone by the wayside here i better do something but nobody gave him an opportunity to talk to a lawyer respectfully you know and i'm not sure the exact policy and when they would provide him with a public defender or who and how that process actually plays out and i'm not for sure the detectives knew at that point  great guide for prosecutors to remind themselves of and we're not being critical of you counsel totally but you know it's not a question of can i do this sometimes it's a question of should i do this with from bakersfield i think it was up and your seven three five he says the initial converse he concludes the court concluded that the initial conversation to be part of the later conversation and he said the core thought that the second interview with merely a know the first interview now what does that tell us that tells us regardless of what went on but initiation and all that other stuff that's that you know that muddies the water here it was the same interview his rights were violated three hours later he's in the same with the same people unlike the case that mr smith decided to record as you want to point out he was a juvenile and that the defendant in the other case had an operation brain of a boy like frankly we're not just talking about a fourteen year old when i was growing up we're talking about a fourteen year old in recent times where they're far different than what they were before i knew less sophisticated well rodriguez i'll go i have not met mr rodriguez face to fish or on or off out this case for quite some time because it took some time to get the records i've communicated with many times he's communicated to my kids is communicated