coming in and get in a tape recording i mean what what factual findings do we have about it from the state court there yes your honor the woman's name in this case was miss campbell and the state court did specifically  to testify at trial in any event as to admissions that he had made to her so what if the intent of the police was not really to record the threat but to get him to say things about the murder right factual to we have about that because there's two ways in my you know you could look at it from the standpoint that you could look at it and say well yeah she did come in that's pretty much undisputed she said she was getting threatened she figured she would be next and they said well you need to record the threats but clearly he had already been arrested for the murder he already had a lawyer and so if the state court say had found well i find that yeah she did come in that way but our but my primary facts they found your honor that the state did not think more in this case then provide counseling or with a tape recorder and tell her to turn it on whenever petitioner called her they specifically the state courts all specifically found that there were no instructions beyond turn on the tape recorder when he calls so this was not any findings about what the police hope to get out of this your honor if there were not but it is irrelevant in this case what the police officer to follow is the traditional analysis of each and see was you know this person acting as an agent of the police and all the factors that you've cited go to the question that she was not what the district  is i'm not interested in that i'm going to look at the purpose of the slide in the purpose of the size of the government not deliberately solicit statements from the defendant or the accused and under that standard she properly rehearse that one of the things that had come up in these conversations previously had been that he killed people and specifically some of the defendants in this case that was part of the threats yes sure and so they know that at the time that they give the recordings a device to work yes they  to hide under the desk that would have been an abdication of their duties to protect the safety of the public doesn't that's the main distinction though between henry and the side in our situation that there's a new ongoing currently going on crime district court did not look to traditional analysis of agency it looked at the cases look at multan looked at henry and looked at mr sawyer and it said that an agent does not have to be compensated although i might say in this case this agent was because this agent was promised witness protection program and did go into the witness protection program and under henry this witness this informant was in fact compensated what should the police have done this lady called of the police and says i'm scared of this guy he's killed other people now he's threatening me what should they have done what the police should have done your honor what the d a should have done is go in in camera under seal with a declaration from miss campbell linger that she's been threatened and what would have happened is that the bail of my client would have been revol he would have been arrested and he would have been remanded very simple he says i didn't threaten her she said that he did threaten me he would be saying that while these in custody your honor what makes you think they revoke him with he denies it i think the declaration of a principle witness in this case would have been sufficient for a supreme court judge to terminate and revoke the the bail in this case i have no doubt about that that's what would have happened here the d a did not take that route instead under the killed that's kind of important to you and that's exactly why the reason your honor that the da should have moved immediately and gone into court under seal in camera and asked for  into custody of the defendant in this case a lawyer like you would have gone in there so that's just her that's just her story i would have done that your honor and i was like all you say let's get her on tape and i would have lost your honor maybe you wouldn't you wouldn't because with due respect your honor supreme court judge would not take the chance that a principal witness under penalty of perjury is saying i've been threatened that would be sufficient as far as i'm concerned you if you win today i want to be there with the rule would be the rule would be if a witness in a pending case calls the police and says i've been threatened the police cannot say to her if he calls you back try to capture it on tape what they should have done the new rule that we would announce today no no what they should have done is first of all secure a mand of this defendant did but can they tell her if he calls you back capture it on tape no they cannot say that what they can say at the maximum and i'm not sure that this is even sufficient is do not speak to him about the facts of this case about the murder charge because that's what he has a right to counsel for and you can't do that in the absence of counsel that has but ok but they can't make her an agent that happened you know i mean how could you tell anyone that has nothing to do with that you can't talk about a certain subject well they could say it here your honor because to prove the threats you have to prove the murder because she was telling detective wall of that by telling me this what the informant is saying by telling me about these two murders he's really saying to me that i'm next to my daughter's the next so to prove the threats in this case  detective will know this very experience homicide investigator he knew to prove those threats let's come a link there would have to go into the murders because that was the basis of the threats council i'm having a lot of trouble with your principal though it seems to me that here we have a parent boyfriend girlfriend relationship it's should be a fairly major question that he's under indictment in pending charges in you want us to establish the rule that in that  circumstance where he raises so if you go i don't think i want to talk about that that's going to point out the fact that there's something going on and put her in even greater danger well i'm not in favor of all of violating the scion i think it was i don't think for a minute detective wolf should have given her recording equipment with no instructions and told her to turn it on where the defendant starts speaking to you i think that is a clear violation of says you just have to create a situation where it's likely where you know or you should know that incriminating statements are going to be elicited henry says that it's the context in which the informant and the defendant are interacting rather than specific knowledge on the part of the police at that time all the cases indicate that if  create the environment so that the informant is going to elicit incriminating statements you have violated the cya because you have directly and explicitly obtained incriminating statements from that defendant who makes no difference whether he calls her multimedia issue that he initiated the conversation makes no difference that he picks up the phone and calls for i believe multan and henry make no distinction if  says if you must have known like detective wolf knew he knew that there would be discussions about the murder not about intimidation he knew there would be discussions about the murder while i am the attorney or wreckage preparing for a murder case he's recording my client talking about the murder because he knows going in to talk about the threats you've got to talk about the murder that's the problem in this case you cannot record my client  without finding out about the murders it's not separate and distinct from intimidation i'd be i'd be all for you if they said call him up and try to get him to talk about the murders what they said instead was if he calls you turn on the machine well iran all initiate a call but if he calls you turn the machine on what detectives will should've done if he was doing this and i don't sanction what he did what he should have done at least do not discuss this case this murder case do not discuss it get away from any areas where you discussed it now you couldn't do that because what she said to him basically was that he's not making while threats he's going to do this he's going to do that and come to my house he's going to take me away he's not saying that what she said he said is that by telling her about the two murders there was an implicit threat that she would be next and the kids would be next and that's why the collective wolf couldn't say that to her because she knew they were intertwined and by having to turn on the machine she would talk about the murders and that's the problem and you have here a very aggressive interrogation you read these transcripts it is amazing how masterly this woman was she's talking about motive she's talking about the same bullet used in both cases she's talking about how did you leave the body there what time did you leave you got to my house or the certain time to made the mistake of calling the wrong person and well but this was aggressive interrogation by an agent of the government that's what happened here while i was attorney erected awaiting a murder case here already knew that she could testify cording to her that he admitted confessed to the crimes they didn't have to do this they could have arrested him for intimidation and your honor that's what happened here anyhow what happened here is that he was arrested and occasions that this was a very sophisticated lady who knew how to ask questions they had to know that because they didn't have to give her any instructions apparently she knew exactly what to do and this was highly prejudicial this is a case where the forensic evidence is nonexistent when no one knows what happened at the location where the cry took place only two people the accused if he was there and the victim and this is what changed the whole case around and i can make that statement because i tried the case with that onstott works they can very much thank you specifically indicates that that's not entirely true you're honest at the excerpts or record page forty one minutes can only get testified that he had repeatedly told her wherever she would go he would bring her back again and that she should think about even if it's not a problem giving her the machine or telling him to turn it on what they should have done is give a better instructions about what to do or what not to do they didn't give her any instructions in this case try saying they should've instructed her just just be all ears don't