defendant waived his and his right to miranda warning at the time he was initially stopped by the police officers the records clear both officers testified that he was giv miranda rights and he said he understood them the record is clear that they never got any express meter from him and that all we have to be express no wonder north carolina versus butler the scanner is basically a waiver can clearly be o those it cannot be inferred that you know he basically waived his rights at that point and then after that time you basically his testimony never gave any statement that i think because he never they never got a waiver at that time and you have to remember the information then went through police channels that he was cooperating with them so when the officer or the detective shows up at the jail third question was who's ownership of the car was it because they had suspicion that the car might have been stolen he said no it's my dad so other than that both officers testified he didn't say anything and i think the  anyway probably the one as to where is your partner if you responded that you kind of and i just admitted you have a partner but but that was done and i think the magistrate was right is that because they didn't know where the guy was there may have been a threat other right and so there's no reason why the detective couldn't have gotten that at the jail and should get some jail i mean i think there's a national outcry based upon the illinois getting rid of their death penalty cases based upon problem when you have state cases draining of the federal system when you take the federal district court into the state police court very early and not everything gets from the state file to the federal file and in this case we have a a clear statement from mr workless basically saying i didn't get a good facial of them now that's at the beginning of the tape instead of the end of the case i think you can see where that type know i didn't have that information in my hand to catch the motion the judge and i have that information and he makes the the determination as to the reliability of the of the eyewitness testimony tr did but i just don't think that by the end of the trial that you can really ring the bell i mean this i think was i think we're two and a half days into the trial at that point and he was this government's second witness and you know that type of  the late testimony coming back and saying well i didn't now have a better time to reflect and say what happened and you know and that's what you can't explain away the statement has been evidence although i think that was shaky i don't think the jury relied on that because the the person who who put together the presentation or testified as to the to the fingerprint evidence basically said there were fourteen points in comparison that were similar but then he only the six up there and he never could explain why and never did explain what the other eight points or so i don't think the fingerprint a they looked at it and there was nothing on the tape visually so there is no evidence of these two individuals perpetrating there are basically to videotape only team in the evidence to tie the defendant to the store and also to get the suspects and my client in the robbery there was no reason investigative reason to drag me to terrify people one of whom admitted he didn't get a good facial view and take take him out there put  in one car let him confer and then agree censure that my guys the the best procedure the better procedure would have been since they already had i had enough probable cause evidence would be to allow these people to sell down and then take them down for a lineup or photo lineup that type of situation and therefore i think it was the to show up was clearly suggestive the last issue i'd like to address is the commerce clause i requested and just an instruction basically to go to transplant substantial impact instruction and i would agree with prior counsel that that this was basically a state case and i don't know of a very i don't know of any other cases that were basically a local robbery of a local store is handled in federal court and there exactly what the just justice thomas and some of the other judges are talking about in the supreme court cases when they're worried about basically the federal government basically being the state power to prosecute local crimes and becoming basically a federal police power and therefore i would argue that the tenth amendment that that reserves the right the states has to be balanced somewhat again they're drawing what would normally be a state crime one of his claims well then you have the counter concerns that the federal government under the commerce or under the constitution should not be standard there to handle that situation to balance the tenth amendment against the commerce clause and what i would argue that in a case like this which is you know it's really a local case these people are gang members they're not part of a order to properly balance the tenth amendment against the commerce clause i'll go ahead and reserve the rest of my time thank you involved an individual who was robbed i believe in that case was somebody was taken from nevada to montana and chopped up put in a hole or something like that and it was an individual the  like that and as i stated before he was pretty winded he was kind of just shaking his head and answering yes to you know i don't know stuff that nature now the so i think that the the judge's findings in that respect that there was a voluntary waiver of the miranda rights is supported by the record and again if there's any problem with that even if we look at th that the next day both of them had to leave work early because they're both so shook up which was another impact on their state cameras so you know what the district judge found in that respect w case where there's overwhelming proof to try to put some blame on the government say that they haven't totally done their job that they should i mean there's a great line in the defense brief where he says they deny me the building at the time to show that the entire the whole case or what you might have expected the police to do one of the circumstances whether you wanted to hold these two witnesses any longer who were already shaken up or whether you want to just deal with it right there