potentially the officer didn't hear those words that we have the direct evidence on that in the record that the off the officer didn't hear what the defendant it may not be this case but is there a case where the order heard you wasn't so the tape and clearly identified as the defendant saying i want to warrior and the officer being able to say i didn't hear of and that being reasonable on the part of the officer for not stopping the interview at that point that being found to have relieved the officer from discontinuing the interrogation at that point because it seems that that's something what you're arguing here you're saying the circumstantial evidence tends to indicate that the officer didn't pick up on what the defendant said so that relieves them of any obligation to either clarify what the defendant or to stop the interview but if it's an unequivocal request for counsel and the officer just because you know that at a later point he says he didn't hear a quote even more tenuous this circumstance where of the state is arguing that the placement of the of the paper copy of miranda might have inhibited the officers ability to hear the sound and that's different than what you're describing the supreme court decision because that involves a and there is no reasonable explanation by the defense attorney for not moving to suppress those statements what about the defendant's statement i've been a criminal to goddamn  you say in your brief that it would have come in anyway or the jury already knew about his criminal record anyway or would have known what how was that i said he said but if we take mr  waller's representation that he wasn't just focusing on these latter comments what is assertion is that defense counsel is in effect of her not moving to suppress all of these irrelevant step of comments or statements throughout the interview out how do you address of the relevancy of those statements about them to criminal record commentary and question he says because every other word is for feigning threats to do bodily harm to the victims in this case how would that have engender symp yes but that's n is a reasonable to argue that the only possible way the fin could prevail was for his attorney to file a motion to suppress that statement he made  police station and hopefully win because that's the only way he was going to possibly win this case and so why wouldn't he filed a motion to take a shot at  yeah but he might have been able to explain that away but once that confession to the police station comes in the evidence that's it you don't really seriously dispute it but that's pretty much in a strategy that he's pretty sympathetic on the here so that that lens so the argument that just as a justice or make you hear that why not ask them are there any questions but to ascertain if he was in fact attempting to invoke his right to counsel there's no citation for that proposition is or case that says  comments of the trial of course clearly indicate the court understood the necessity and apply the required counsel yes and what i wanted to know is what the comments of the trial court indicated that the court understood  ok i'm just going to add another tour of comment to me that really giving the problem for the benefit of the doubt and terms of indicating it reflects the trial court's awareness that it was required to engage in a balancing test cycle people be abernathy in that same paragraph of your brief and in that case the court very clearly proffer very clearly indicated good i don't want you to lose all of your time here this is during the hearing on the motion in london a right ok you think that's in there though i don't see any fake  i'll take a lawyer it's obvious that the officer who's speaking at the same time wouldn't be able to shouldn't we factor that in and determining what old enough to the officer continued the interrogation i