preclude relief now we understand that of course obviously in the supreme court has said much the same thing in the you wouldn't bother to have this statute if that were true but this is a very factually specific area and although his original interrogation during which he doesn't say anything incriminating is in the middle of the night there is then a jump as i read the record from about three thirty in the morning to nine fifteen or so nine seventeen that evening you know many many hours later and even if he wasn't sleeping in his cell it was still a long break  through detail as the wisconsin court did and it is factually specific but if you look at the facts in this case i think there's only one way to conclude because all of the facts support a finding that the statement was involuntary i don't i mean that that's not how the state court looked at it he's remembering what he said he's you know maybe not the the brightest of people but he's telling them you know where he was and he's involved with the latin kings kang he i mean i don't know what could the court have found it was was involuntary sure it could have been did it have to i don't see why the court i think cherry pick certain details that they observed in the video of the statement but overall and if you look at the circumstances of the statement in its totality you see similar facts to and he you know that the video doesn't seem to reveal that he's overwhelmed i think the breaking time actually weighs in favor of an involuntary say anything in that first round of conversations he says she does anything incriminating incriminating things come out almost well not quite twenty four hours later but maybe eighteen hours later right after he spent a long time in custody but he has not being interrogated by the police he's in a cell there is a bump in the cell it's not really the police's fault that he's not sleeping while he's eighteen years old  there was evidence presented in the trial court in the state trial court that he had he was a student who was in special education classes throughout his career his student career he was denied he didn't have any access to a lawyer during that period of time or family members but he might if you think teen he's not of the age that one would assume he needs a family member right he's he wasn't a juvenile he was just barely an adult he was ssion in an attempt to induce him to make a statement which has been deception has been found to be an element in determining whether a statement is involuntary or but the supreme court has never said the deception is impermissible right i think it's one of the factors to consider here but it's certainly a strong factor in light of the lengthy custody lack of sleep the age of the petition interrogation that being yelled at and being promised things if you just tell us that it was a mistake what was the promise there was some discussion both in the district court opinion in the state courts it's not really quite a promise it's if you cooperate with thus if you tell us that you did it and you tell us it was a mistake you didn't mean to kill a federal informant who treat this as a youthful indiscretion the courts will go much later  knew that was the clear implication of what the detectors were saying but you know at some level how is that wrong so in the federal courts at least if you accept responsibility if you cooperate you indeed do get a lighter sentence the right data lie it was a lie here because the detectives were just making it up as they went along i don't think there was any intention for them to represent to anybody that you cooperated they had one goal when they were trying to get the state and that was what was happening understood it and would like to save rebuttal time you're free to do so or we're not as foolish yes i will  analysis and weighing of factors as a result the state courts get substantial leeway in applying that test to the factor in their case here the state court addressed heavenly and the great detail limited mental capacity but state the state trial court implicitly found based on the petitioners demeanor on the video and his testimony and the evidence before it that he did not have any sort of a special susceptibility to suggestion or coercion the court can also see from the videos that he doesn't show any sort of confusion as to the questions that are being asked he seems to be aware of his circumstances and the potential consequences of his statements so some recall on the unlike in the massey case we don't have evidence here of exactly any kind of i q level so right exactly so i think right deathy is instructive on that point the only evidence here was petitioner statement that he was in special education classes in death he was actually expert testimony where he had tested dessie on a number of factors in terms of his intelligence and his instep ability to suggestion and found that he was extremely suggestible according to that day ninety five percent of the population exactly and that there is no evidence of that here in this record and the state court because it was a factual determination that he lacked special susceptibility is entitled to a presumption of correctness and petitioner would have the burden of showing clear and convincing evidence otherwise and just this bare statement that he was in a special education program doesn't suffice to overcome the state courts factual determination and because of that factual determination was reasonable the state court also could reasonably conclude that looking at the circumstances of the are not of a type that would cause an average or even slightly below average person to feel the need to confess to one of the things mr frankel pointed out or argued was that the police phrased what they were saying i guess i'll put it that way in a way that was going to make him think they were promising leniency if he confessed why isn't that the right way to look at th there is no x illicit promise they have to the investigators but they are being very careful right well because they are lying to him they are saying they're waving around the cd and saying this has you bragging about you know the hit and so on that's true i would say that it never went beyond the sort of ordinary police tactic of saying if you confess things will likely go better for you and that is just generally true they never made even a specific promise in terms of will recommend lesser charges or will you know intercede on your behalf and in fact i think that the detectives in this case were careful not to try to seem as if they were his friend in some way they maintain a sort of adversarial role in their questioning of him then they go back and forth i thought they had the kind of good guy bad guy they'd have you know a nice little group you know being kind to him and then people come in and showered him in and some other nice little group would come in and unfortunately i don't know that there are there was a set of detectives that we could call the good cops here there was one central detective paris who is present at almost every interview except for one where two other investigators came in and they had been interviewing dr delgado and he had implicated the petitioner and they relayed that to petitioner i don't believe that either of those individuals came back into the process at any point after they had had that sort of an exchange with him so tell could you just review for me my recollection from this record is that apart from by confession the delgado also says the guy is the person who was the shooter correct so he provided testimony that he had actually seen the shooting occur and petitioner was the one who carried out the shooting and so it does show because there were these independent witnesses that the confession itself was not necessarily the linchpin to the state's case and in this heaviest matter even if the conclude that it was an involuntary confession i don't think the court should reach that conclusion even then it should find that there was no substantial and injurious effect here because there was such detail testimony from those two individuals and petitioners confession i think really its role in his in establishing his guilt was limited to his taking responsibility for the shooting i think it's also important to look at what he did not concede throughout his interrogation he eventually broke down and said i'm the one that did the shooting but he never gave an explanation as to his motives i was going to say i couldn't figure out from start to finish in this case whether he was just sort of going out and randomly shooting at the next car that came by or whether there really was some grudge against the victim or what was going on so petitioner made it sound as if he had just gone out and decided to shoot a random person delgado nass of nato testified that and reggae tourists who was the enforcer of the latin kings had actually given him the gun and had a discussion with him and then party i don't know that it's clear that lozano was actually the intended target or not and he was actually driving someone else's car at the time which suggests it could also been mistaken identity case but petitioner never implicated and  concessions in his interview and i think it's notable that there was a lot of pressure on him especially at the first interview to try to pin the blame on someone else who may have been using him who may have been threatening him to try to carry this out that he would have some sort of a compulsion defense he never at any point though pointed the finger at torres or gave any sort of an explanation as to his motives so in that way i think more persuasive testimony not only as to the exact circumstances of the shooting itself but to the surrounding circumstances that explain why they were there in the first place maybe this was just a comment on the  denied what had happened at the party earlier that night so he did i think kind of repay that sort of loyalty in that way and that he did testify for the defense but in conclusion i think that court that alone i callate court discussed all of this at great length that recognize the factors that may have tended to support involuntary ness and it considered whether those were sufficient under the circumstances and in weighing those factors that responded argues that any air air any or here would have been harmless because of the evidence in the case actually the evidence was pretty closely balance the there was no physical evidence connecting ernesto via to this allowed him to plead to a lesser charge where he received ten years at fifty percent and acevedo even though he was in the car claims to have witnessed the shooting at least the sound of the shooting and seeing fishing or running back from the scene of the crime was not charged at all with an offense i think that shows that the state knew that their testimony was crucial in order to win this case what we're talking about here is not only the credibility or reliability of the statement but i'm a matter of fundamental fairness finally lied to after eighteen hours and sleep deprivation and being isolated from anyone he knew or phone calls or anything he did tell them what what they wanted to hear and under under these circumstances we argue that the  e got it wrong and their opinion was incorrect and not consistent with the intention and the explicit statements in supreme court precedent on these issues and for obvious reasons we would ask the court to grant the relief that we ask for