suspect were speaking in spanish with each other correct or and that was recorded correct yes is there a separate transcript somewhere other than this being transcribed during the course of the were discussing namely whether or not he was going to have to go back to connote the fact that he to have to have a hearing in arkansas st how was it up check to flee unreasonable for the court to conclude that he was not asking for an attorney for the interrogation part but rather inquiring about how he would get one for the court proceeding the statement here was unequivocal he asked how do i get an attorney here because i did not have enough to afford for one but i understood your position to be that it's unequivocal that he wants an attorney but that's sufficient and then there may be a distinct nd question about well what's the scope of that request and for that supreme court law clearly establishes in essence ambiguity has to be interpreted broadly in favor of the suspect that the officer can just go forward boldly presuming that he must have meant something else as that right your honor again because these interrogations oftentimes involve discussions of other proceedings and it would invite ambiguity in a whole host of cases for the state said edwards in court in very clear the that decision that was a bright line rule unlike other decisions of this court where there is some flexibility it's either unequivocal or it's not and again to compare t murder before the interview started he asked officer tories are you guys going to take me back to can osha officer tori's that explain to him no there's an extradition proceeding that has to take place st here  in response to that in a serious abuse of sario asked how can i get a lawyer here since i can't afford one to which officer tori's responded this don't worry the state of arkansas will appoint one before the he  yeah he said well that's not what we're here to talk about or whatever it was but at right at that moment he said well how how am i doing i mean it's how you whether it's seems to me that a reasonable interpretation is that sorry i was still curious about what this extradition proceedings all about and that's what prompted as a what how can i you know if i'm having a lawyer here or how can i afford it this is right after he voluntarily and twelve usually waived his right to counsel for the interrogation where he was told if you can't afford a lawyer under miranda then the can we will we will still appoint one for you so it's reasonable i think off the tories honestly and reasonably believed that even though he said  we're not talking about extradition not a word we're going to talk about the murder that mr submissive sorious was still interested in what about the sex addiction proceeding that's coming up here since you guys are taking me back to  will it could be taken as an indication for purposes of the extradition hearing i'm not sure even under davis whether that would even be an unequivocal indication well but it's a lot closer if we're talking about the extra request that's something the police officer would need to clarify rather than just presume away when i think i'm relying there on on the barrett case as well as portions of michigan against jackson that have not been overruled but i think davis is pretty clear that you don't have to ask clarifying questions you could but you don't have to think davis is pretty clear on that and that as to whether he wants a lawyer as to whether  lawyer for the interview and i think it's reasonable for off satori said think that he's number one not revoking his previous waiver of his right to counsel for the interview and clearly invoking his right to the presence of counsel during the interview and then this is the trial court except it officer the reasonableness of officer tourists testimony and the trial court agreed that this was not a clear unequivocal indication of the right to counsel for purposes of the interview could we focus on the critical passage in the lead opinion for the wisconsin supreme court here paragraph eighty seven at least the way i read this the pivotal sentence in the analysis of this issue reads it was reasonable for officer torres to assume so d s osorio was asking about how he could get an attorney for his extradition hearing of continued day answer questions and remained cooperative for the rest of the interview you agree that the nd half of that sentence is flatly contrary to smith against illinois yeah and i think i agree it seems a bit that that was one of the factors but it seems to me that if you know again looking at the circumstances here that the horten the most critical fact here is the fact that just moments earlier he voluntarily intelligent he waived the presence of count and then this all came up before the interview started when they're talking about extradition proceedings and so even if you strike that last phrase from the supreme court's opinion i think it's reasonable to support the ultimate conclusion that this was not clearly contrary to the united states to davis the united states that this was a reference an ambiguous reference to counsel in the context of a discussion about extradition in fact it wasn't even a request it was a question about how do i afford a lawyer if you know it in and in this context and that officer immediately explaining all of the state of arkansas one point when before your hearing and mr subdue as a serial presumably satisfied with that made no other comments as no more questions officer tori's started asking him about what happened in mississippi as a sario is he just agreed to moments earlier answered readily answer his questions without an attorney present and so that in forces the waiver that occurred earlier regardless of what happened after what happened during the interview so so i think it's reasonable again i think the district court was correct in saying  contrary to smith well i think it is then that the discussion ended with officer tories telling him this don't worry about that the state of arkansas will appoint a lawyer for you before you go to court country dismissed so much as trying to decipher from things he said later during the interview retrospective lee but regardless even if you take that out of the equation what happened up until that point reflects an ambiguous reference to counsel within the contemplation of davis as opposed to an unequivocal request for the assistance of counsel again during two to assist him during the interview that he had just freely and voluntarily agreed to engage in with the officers after he was told that if you can't afford a lawyer for this interview we will appoint one anyways and so again i think for m here and here and now that would be pretty emphatic i would think now would be sufficient well it might be i you know here's the thing too on this thing about here i refer the court to page three note three of the district court initially it's like how do i get a lawyer here since i can't afford one but he clarified it later and it said the translator said how can i get a lawyer of and then dash from here because i can't afford one and i think that that further emphasizes that he's talking about an arkansas lawyer and it's again in context of the appointment of an arkansas lawyer for the hearing that there was a proposition to the word here of or from him that the spanish proposition is dady which means of from and of or from and so how can i get a lawyer from here in the context of talking about the appointment of a lawyer for the court here  how can i get a lawyer here it wasn't here in arkansas or how we like it and attorneys here it was how can i get an attorney here so we thought i was pretty emphatic and sufficient to trigger the protections of edwards camp you've mentioned that you that's not the case the state only cited to three different factors in its analysis one was the post imitation context which is contrary to smith the other was the fact that petitioner signed a waiver of rights warm that's not  officer tourist responded if you need an attorney by the time you're going to appear in the court the state of arkansas will get an attorney for you can the court considered that statement or would that violates meant that i would speak your honor because