seriousness of it but it's pretty straightforward we've had to produce for most of the record so please both sides it's your strongest point any time you're good morning honestly it please the court i represent various paulk i would like to focus my time stay on the first two arguments from the must understand and relinquish to relinquish his rights to silence and counsel and the confession may not be the product of inducements or coercion of any sort in this case stereos to not understand his right to silence is that right was never explained to him he asked for an attorney and the detectives coerced this confessions by among other things promising him that his friend would be released from jail if he confessed under these circumstances the trial court's ruling denying the motion to suppress should be overturned the recording of jerry is interrogation shows that when the that the detectives do not simply read various his miranda rights but rather expounded on them in a confusing manner when that when the detective asked arius if he understood the right would have been no need for the detective to say oh well in that case i'll explain everything to you the detectives response is is the clearest indication that his nodding of his head was in fact and no answer and when the detector and when the detective said he would explain it he in fact  never did he told areas that any statement he said could be used against him but he never said that he didn't have to say anything at all which is is the the crux of the right her main silent  the only other time that the detective mentioned the right to silence was was a few minutes later when he kind of talked about all the rights together and in sort of a summary fashion and he said do you understand those rights how old are you he didn't give derrius an opportunity to say yes  otherwise because various immediately gave his age which was seventeen he didn't give various an opportunity to say to say yes or no and those were the only two occasions indicated by the interrogation video or d v d that the right silence was ever mentioned there's nothing on to miranda i think i think that's definitely the question here is where these warnings reasonably convey to gary's book i mean the way that the detective gave the warnings was especially with with regard to the right counsel was was in a negative manner in a way he really perverted that right by saying you have the right not to have an attorney you can talk to me without an attorney if you want to and although that's true it's clearly a manipulation of the miranda rights where the actual right is you have a right to an attorney to not talk if you don't want to and there's nothing on the record to indicate that regarding the right to silence that even if it even if it was if it was given there still has to be some understanding of that right and that simply is not shown on the record  of all of the circumstances in this case points to a lack of understanding especially when as this as it shows on the video the detective responds to that head nod added as if it is a negative answer and i think that you know we have to take just go back to the parties agree to admit the videotape and you have to do so there's no question about whether or not this evidence was properly made it is in evidence what i want to know is what the judge considered when he made those times where the judge definitely did consider the videotape but my suggestion is that the judge's interpretation of the video was erroneous because in fact when he was talking about they were might right to remain silent he actually referred to a part later in the interrogation when the detective was asking various about when when terry slater asked for an attorney and he said do you remember your rights i read them to you and he was talking about the right to counsel he wasn't referring back to their right right to remain silent so the judge in a fact was looking toward the the right as i said as i said before the detective gave these rights in a confusing manner he didn't say you have a right to an attorney he said you have the right not to have an attorney you can talk to me without an attorney if you want one he made it seem as though this was a positive thing that he could talk to the police and get a confession without an attorney and then later when various said i want to try to get me a lawyer the the detective did say you know do you want to lawyer yes or no and although he was asking jarius for a yes or no question there asked you know when he wanted to call his aunt to see about getting a private attorney and he told the detective i don't want the attorney that you're going to get me well he said he wanted to try to get a lawyer and then he said i want to see if my if my aunt has the has the money to get to get an attorney indicating a private attorney and when he said i don't want the attorney that you all are going to get me the detective said i'm not going to get you anything so even though earlier been told that he would get an appointed counsel the detective later said hey i'm not going to get you anything and he didn't clarify that by saying you're appointed attorney is going to come later by a judge or court he just said i'm not going to get you anything so what scariest left with he's left with this  videotaped without his knowledge and there's nothing there's nothing that should have kept that interrogation going beyond that i would get the idea he doesn't know the piece of the proposition that when these police departments put in these twenty four hour day no i don't think that's the case at all i don't think the defendant has to know that he's being videotaped but it does but i do think it puts a little a different flavor i guess to what happened the detective knows they're being videotaped there is doesn't always but sting videotape he doesn't know it being videotaped so when the detective goes on and so you know yes or no yes or no he knows it's because he's being videotaped and someday somebody is going to look at this videotape and want to see whether gary is did say yes or no but the the other side of that is you know there is of it have any idea that he is that he's being videotaped but the point is have the detective manipulated the miranda right of the right to counsel and then told him he was going to get anything and then told him that he wouldn't be able to call as they have for a private attorney and so after he confessed the the state's  be some indication for a desire to counsel i mean there's definitely gray areas in this area and certainly there are there are many occasions where where the supreme court hasn't found an indication of the right to counsel that would suggest that in this case under all the circumstances  various right was told to him as in a negative fashion we were he expressed a desire for an attorney and where that you know where he said where his his request was was met with you can't call anybody until after you they did they did make an effort to find a sample if they if in fact this was an indication of the right to counsel then that's when the questioning should have stopped whether or not they could find it and i think what's what's also disturbing about this case is that over the period of the the detectives use multiple manipulative tactics in order to extract a confession not only did they repeatedly tell the areas that everything would be fine if he confessed they told him he wouldn't be they also  him to confess and that they would release his friend sean wooden who was not only his friend but was also his girlfriend's brother who happened to be a four corner hustler and was also confined to a wheelchair they told terry s before he came in that shawn wasn't happy about having to come in and then after he came in and apparently did not robbery various alibi various asked about him and the district judge said over and over again well let him go if you talk just tell it with tell us what happened well we'll die miserable death in prison are they required saying they're not required to say that but i think when you're looking at whether there were improper inducements and that that where there were that made the confession involuntary i think that's one of the things that you can look at when i'm looking at there was one lie in there and there were multiple instances of him telling everything everything will be fine you know and whether or not that's i'm not saying that that you know a single instance of him telling him that it would be fine when really it's not going to be fine but the overall interpretation of the video is that he's the unsophisticated person he i mean he is conversing with the detective i mean he's not you know he's he's not you know as limited as some people but he certainly does have limitations and clearly if he's you know he says he doesn't understand the right to remain silent you asked him to repeat you know one of the rights you know he did seem confused at one point the detective said even told him hey you're hemming and hawing you're hemming and hawing and he said after anybody i do that all the time i mean he wasn't you know the most articulate person in the world home for did he actually go and see how far did he go in school i think he maybe went to like ninth or tenth grade but i believe he was reading at a second grade level so as an expert if their experience and qualifications for the knowledge were just not going to lay persons and where such testimony and the aid to try are a fact in reaching its conclusions an expert need only have knowledge and experience beyond that of the average citizen in this he testified as an expert nearly a hundred times at the time of various the trial and neither the state nor the trial court ever disputed his qualifications as an expert rather the court denied the motion based on its believe that the jury could decide the carry a statement however because dr leo met the standard for an expert that is he had specialized knowledge which would have aided the jury in its determination of facts he should have been allowed to testify interviewing techniques that create risky environments for false confessions are outside the realm of ordinary knowledge although several jurisdictions have recognized this area as an appropriate area for expert testimony the strongest indication in illinois that this subject is appropriate expert in this area should be allowed to testify whether in fact the confession was false or not this wasn't about about telling the jury one way or the other whether it was false it was simply about explaining to the jury giving the jury well i mean i think i think certainly the reason that this expert should have been allowed is because those factors are present in this case because there are inducements to link the interrogation and so on but i don't think necessarily that the expert would have had to testify you know pointing out exactly where where he he thinks these risk factors were but definitely the jury should have been allowed to know the specialized knowledge and have the have the tools to aid them in their determination you know with  any different than one source well doesn't just have to be a degree i mean a person can be an expert based on their experience based on their knowledge based on their work history i mean there are other many other kinds of specialized knowledge i mean again experts think on the they don't have an identification testimony and in those cases that's that's never been considered to be anything other than specialized knowledge and it's also never been a lot of noise on the bench trial but two years ago and so the pieces are legion  identification such as a stressful scene the use of a weapon things like that were actually present in the facts of that case and there have been other cases where you know the court's past the where the court has that there has to at least be a meaningful in be some sort of balance between the probative value and prejudicial value of allowing this expert to testify to testify it's not there although there are cases going against it it's not because it's not allowed it's simply because the court has simply found that after a meaningful after  idea that the jury could decide for itself but this is specialized knowledge no ordinary person would ever have a reason to encounter a false confession in their everyday life i mean and also the fact that you know states attorneys who are already highly specialized attorneys if so i think in in defense counsel's motion he did include dr lee as reporter and his resume and i think that report does give guidance as to as to what his testimony would have been  the confession is the most powerful piece of evidence that a state has in this case gary should have been allowed to fully attack that evidence with the appropriate resources that were available to him th goes to that simply goes to his his intelligence his i q but that's that's not the same as that's that's looking to various that's not looking to what the detectives did i mean dr leo's testimony would have been more looking at that it's what the detective said not about anything having to do with various as personal limitations or suggestibility or anything about that this is about objective risk factors employed by the detectives this isn't something that the the expert in in no the only time that an expert should be allowed in a case like this is when those factors are present and when defense counsel wants to present that testimony this isn't going to to open the floodgates to to all of a sudden we have experts and everything we write for the whole world so we and an expert could speak to the effect to those factors and educate the jury that's not anything to be afraid at that's giving the jury more tools so that the state can get more accurate convictions and that the defense can fully defend himself with the appropriate resources based on his confession he doesn't even know he is that he knows there's a shooting but he doesn't know that there's but that it's actually a homicide and he certainly didn't i'm admitted to a homicide and he had been interesting if there are no further and half the people the state of illinois dr leo was not testifying based on specialized knowledge dr leo was holding himself out as a social scientist as he referred to himself several times in the report he submitted else secondary records is not meant to give you specialized knowledge perhaps mylan has a specialized knowledge dr leo does not he also is not a social scientist so the court was absolutely correct  little time and they're going experts are police officers who are out on the street it's not a law professor sitting out in california in his office reviewing records it's not somebody who hasn't been involved in interrogations  on a regular basis it isn't somebody who knows the subject personally it's just a cold hard record he's a lawyer he's a law professor and he's holding himself out there as a social scientist if you would except him as an expert anyone who's a lawyer is going to be able to testify i'm cleese interrogation techniques and false confessions the bones police officers were all with the experience by being involved in a number of investigations this law professor result in california he looks at a lot of case and he starts coming to conclusions he doesn't require specialized knowledge but the police officers who are involved in all these investigations first hand knowledge for the police officers second and third hand knowledge for the law professor it's not his area of expertise he's a law professor he's not an interrogator he's not somebody who's tested people to show hey when you ask somebody a question this way x number of people come out with this kind of answer it's he's not the social scientists that are held out as experts in other types of cases he's a law professor his testimony also was a rel didn't examine the defendant he didn't talk to the deter tech to get off he failed to acknowledge that the information the defendant was being confronted with was actually accurate so according to dr leo you can't confront i suspect with leo wanted to present here the jury could decide on their own they had the videotape best evidence in the world they could look at it they could hear the tone of the voice they could see the responses of pain it was giving they could see the way they treated him and in this case they were nothing take can notice when somebody is being manipulated manipulated if it's a simple question in answer session as what was happening here with being confronted with true facts yes everyone in the world can decide whether what the response was false is your soon because the jurors could examine a look at the videotape they could come to their own in this case they could come to their own conclusion there was nothing outrageous about the situation here they were kind they were courteous  to come from california from his lawyer from his his law professor job to come in here and talk about how the chicago police officers performed on a videotape in something that that he didn't even acknowledge that they did critically which was don't look to just one snippet in time to decide whether he understood this right or not and if you look at the conversation as a whole combined with the officers in court testimony indicating that the defendant understood his rights it's clear defendant understood his right remain silent it was read to him several times with the possible exception possible exception of the first time defendant never indicated that he did not understand his rights remain silent he gaijin a conversation with the the marine arena type conversation about his right to counsel combined with the fact that he never asked any questions about his right to remain silent taken as a whole indicated he understood this right and he and as the indication i want i'm thinking about tycoon might not i want to talk to my aunt is i want to see if she has money because i want to see if maybe i can get a lawyer that's not that's not an indication of a right to counsel of course that's now and then the conversation continued to you don't need money for a lawyer well i don't want a lawyer that you're going to get me or the judge is going to get me i want a lawyer if it's that i'm going to pay for it but i got to see if i have the money indication of a right to counsel interesting like the at that he wanted to call he didn't know her phone number but shawn and his alibi witness he said you can find her phone number right so i don't he's not a clear indication of a right to counsel i'm going to see i don't want to think about it maybe if we have money maybe i'll get a lawyer do you want to lawyer do you want to lawyer because this ends now so when you read the statement i'm going to try to get me a lawyer that  away equivocal try if so we got the murray trial because then he went on to say i don't want a lawyer from you which means that that's right i don't and then it was clear fight now one that you're going to yell at me i mean one that the judge is going to get me well then here's my own lawyer he does not want to he actually based it on a test drive testimony that was presented to him make you can't present it and then pretend like it didn't happen he heard the police officer testify with about these patio paper he also looked at the videotape yes he said and the review here then is for the man procure credibility it absolutely so i need to rely on what the judge says when i try to figure out what the defendant met when he said i'm going to try to get me a lawyer and need to look at consider what he said with the judge for you review whether the judge judge's finding that that was equivocal is against the manifest weight of the air you cannot go on your own fact finding mission here and review the videotape and come up with your own conclusion you have to review the judge's decision and whether the evidence in the record supports that decision he had the benefit of also listening to the police officer testify in front of him i read the defendant his rights he understood them and he wai contingent upon the results of the investigation and the results of the investigation in prior were contingent upon my defense i had to say they weren't going to let him go is like a paid gee thanks for confessing today now we're going to let your body go it was shawn's not part of this we're letting shine go the defendant someone who had to involve shawn in this case and they kept saying that to him listen you're the one who brought him here and then we talked to him and he doesn't support your alibi but meanwhile we picked up some other evidence and we may think that sean's car was in the area of the crime at the time to commit it we should just let him go  when you don't know that there's nothing in the record whether they were there or whether they were not there you don't know if they were watching or not watching you don't know if they were in the hallway or not in the hallway there is absolutely nothing on the record with regard to that so you can't assume that the state's attorney's office was not involved in it and you can't assume that they were about that that's just the way the record is in this ca twice in the record at the first point various nodded that he didn't understand at the second point the question was immediately followed with how old are you and he wasn't given an opportunity down to to affirm or deny whether he in fact understood and secondly the state point that various never asked a question about his right to remain silent while he he indicated that he didn't understand i mean are we supposed to first not tell the detective that he doesn't understand and then remind the detective that he doesn't understand he did not the detective knew he didn't understand and didn't do anything and didn't do anything about it secondly regarding the right to an attorney the state is using post invocation statements to justify the the the violation of his right to counsel smithvill annoyed clearly holds that you cannot use subsequent subsequent statements to render the end original invocation ambiguous he said i'm going to try to get me a lawyer he didn't ask he didn't say maybe i should get a lawyer maybe might should he didn't ask  well according to smithville in a way that question shouldn't happen and furthermore again although he was saying you know answer yes or no he also said when there is that i don't want the attorney that you all going to get me he didn't the just the detective didn't say say oh that's attorney going to be later by a judge at a court all he said was i'm not going to get you anything and you can call your aunt after you confess i mean nothing nothing about this was was was in line with what should have happened well what are you saying what i don't know but that's not what happened here all he said was i'm going to try to get me a lawyer he didn't say whether it was private or public and when he said that he didn't want to want to help it does it doesn't matter what or whether he wanted a p t or not the question is whether he wanted a lawyer and he did finally with regard to the coercion that he and the state's argument is that sean's release was contingent upon the outcome of the investigation well maybe it was in the detective's mind but that's not what was conv arius i mean what was conveyed to the areas is hey you talk and we'll let your friend go that was repeated over and over i mean the message that was conveyed to the areas was a quid pro quo you do this we'll give you something in return it wasn't well we're doing an investigation here and we can't let him go until we get to the end of our investigation that's not the message that was given to arius and going to the to the expert issue to the state argues that this wasn't specialized knowledge that all of the all that leo had to go on with the cold heart records but that's not true he doesn't just have a cold hard record which indicates all you've got is a transcript he's got a d v d and he's not just some person sitting in an ivory tower in calif darn it he did he is an expert in this area he's testified over one hundred times as an ex he's published numerous studies and reviews on this subject in pure reviewed scientific journals this isn't just some quack you showing up to testify for whatever whatever he's getting paid for this is somebody who is should be seriously considered and should have been more seriously considered by the court and the other thing the states it is that the that you know anyone any lawyer would be able to testify as an expert on the subject well that's obviously not true i mean not every single lawyer is going to have test who is going to have published numerous softwares studied the records of of numerous cases of false confessions and had that kind of information i mean the idea that just anybody could walk off the street with a law degree and testify as an expert in this is in the spirit in this area it's just just not accurate might be the order of experts if you say this ok well i don't think i don't think that they you know just just having a knowledge base or just being aware of this issue makes you an expert i mean there has to be something beyond and that's what has he has published out he has actually records dozens and dozens of cases of confirmed also confessions based on d n a evidence this isn't just somebody who's aware of his interest in this issue this is somebody who has actual in depth knowledge of this issue and finally the idea that you know a detective could never sit confined to a suspect with accurate information again that's not true this isn't about hamstringing detectives or getting in the way and of their investigation at all all of all this is a giving the the jury the tools to recognize risk factors for false confessions and having the jury decide what the outcome is it's not about getting in the way of any if the police the if this is all about the trial is the truth