the stay said no it is the defense's burden in the court required counsel to go ahead and put mr ball on the stand mr ball testified presented his explanation for how his statement was taken due process violation there isn't really any way shy of as the state would argue an argument that there's overwhelming evidence that is so in your view that's an automatic reversal no matter what happen is it your argument that once the burden is shifted to let's let's assume for the moment that you're correct that the trial court improperly shifted the burden to the defendant once that happens is it your argument that that that that  if the statement ended up not being used to trial wouldn't require a reversal if the court is just caught itself in midstream in and said you know this is incorrect we're going to start over and mentally i'm going to come at this from the aspect of it's on the state to show me that this statement was properly taken he wouldn't have to but if the judge is going to go about his decision know i wouldn't i wouldn't say categorically as i said i can imagine situations with you know overwhelming evidence that just you know from a confession that's a minimal admission with overwhelming other evidence which isn't the case here that a court could find that american the state shows those cases i would say that the tech case in the jones case especially the jones case where you have a situation i think in a number of those cases where it's the shifting of and i may be wrong it's the shifting of the burden of production of the surly burden of proof  false statement that's admitted with subsequent video tape admissions is so powerful that clearly the following of the specifically was there any difference in substance in the content of what he thinks prior to the time he was miranda mirandize as opposed to what he said after he was married statements became much more there are no facts here that she had that that's not her credible statement she had plenty of reason to know that he was very very likely involved with the crime scene  please the court i'm assistant state attorney ashley kusa on behalf of the people of the state of illinois regarding the first issue the record as a whole shows that the trial or properly admitted defendant statements into evidence defendant asks you good you know well and as i was saying defendant is focusing on this error with tunnel vision but this sort of analysis is wholly inappropriate as his father instructs courts to consider all of the evidence on the record to determine whether or not the trial court's ruling on the motion was proper in fact as justice harris pointed out courts have specifically acknowledged that an error by the trial court and shifting the burden on a motion to suppress those look what happened later i mean that's the effect what you're saying is i understand your concern and what we have to look at from the case law is is why why the courts have allowed these errors to be cured and this rule in procedure without giving any real or significant argument or analysis of the facts in this record fails to acknowledge the trial court substantive ruling here and what we have is the courts telling us that to throw defendant statement without conducting a real analysis of the facts it's sweeps farce to bing and it strongly deserves the administration of justice in this case and view everything in the record to determine whether the trial court's ruling on the motion was proper and here if we look at the record we know that the defendant quite literally put himself in the arms of the police in this case he reached out to the police to inquire about his van and the previously been a confidential informant for and inquired about the store and then asked him to call and find out what was going on with this stolen van and so the detectives did follow up with that and they went to his home the bennet even admit defendant agreed to accompany the officers to the station and once he's at the station he's in an interview room where he is in no way restrained no handcuffs were used he wasn't deprived of food water use of the bathroom there is no evidence that the defendant the detectives ever physically touched the defendant that they when the defendant or lie to the defendant in fact instead we have evidence that the defendant was properly mirandized the moment that he indicated that he might know something about this murder so all of this evidence shows that the people at the very least established a crime aphasia case the defendant knowingly intelligently and voluntarily waived his rights so what we know here is that the trial court got to the right result it just got there the wrong way and that's why this court is vested with the power to affirm the trial court's ruling on any basis that's contained within the entirety of the record now regarding the second issue the record is that you should take consider his claim under the clean air doctrine now before this court can even consider a defendant's plain error contention the defendant has to prove to you that an error namely a seeburg violation consider before his going to the car actually that he was a crime scene and you tell us why we should say we can conclude that he was not the focus of their investigation as a defendant but rather he was only being questioned as a victim of a car which if it was trying to do here was he was trying to pull a fast one on the police and he cast himself as the victim of a car that and there is no doubt that these detectives were very smart in this and it's not until it's not until defendant is in custody in that he's not free to leave that he that memorandum requirement comes into place so what we hear what we know here is the defendant voluntarily went to the police station  be expected to to leave commonsense at the door are you saying that he was free to leave it and on the wanted so he was just another person of interest and he was not the focus of the investigation is that your argument yes  leave and the defendant is in this police station on his own volition he admits that the detective told him at the time that he was coming to the station he admits the detective said he was not under arrest in fact this twenty six year old defended on the detective told him that his mother could accompany him to the station if she wished moreover just and it was never handcuffed there's no signs of a formal an indication of any formal arrest there's no fingerprinting no booking nothing like i said the police presence was not constant in the inner and during the interview and during this interview were really happened here was defendant was trying to pull a fast one on the police and he realized when he was confronted with his inconsistent statements that he was stuck and at that point he admitted the he was at the scene of the crime that day and at that very moment the detectives immediately stopped the interview they mirandized the defendant he acknowledge and he waived those rights when the defendant relied on the lopez case to support his siebert violation claim and the facts and beauprez are dramatically different from the facts in the present case what we're dealing with and lopez is a fifteen year old juvenile a twenty six year old confidential informant who is highly sophisticated and in lopez the police went to the defendant's house after the defendant had been directly implicated in the murder and the police didn't let th fifteen year old defendant's mother accompany him to the station instead the police with their guns drawn forcefully as sort of this fifteen year old boy from his home and at the station the police officers didn't mirandize the defendant and lopez even though they had already placed his codefendant under arrest and an officer emitted that he would not have been free to leave the station at that point and the most important difference and lopez from the present case is that the officers in lopez the moment that the defendant admitted that he was involved in the murder they let the defendant keep talking so they found out all the details of defendant's crime they found out how to find it got into the victim's home how he found out the victim how he stabbed the victim and how he got away with the appears that in your mind you of course exposed to you based upon what you know now you have the suspicion that you have the suspicion in your mind you've reached the conclusion that he was trying to pull a fast one on the police why can't we also assume that at the time prior to his admissions he had already become the focus as a defendant and the the already in their minds  plage level of being a person trying to pull a fast one of the police because the we conclude as you have because the proper analysis in this case is whether or not a reasonable innocent person would feel free to leave so that if a reasonable innocent person that was in the defendant situation as a cooperate in witness know that their stolen car had been found at the scene of the crime they would have felt free to leave and it wouldn't have been on realistic for that witness to have been at the police station for five and a half hours as a cooperating witness in a brutal murder so here the present case unlike lopez shows that the detectives did not deliberately engage in a question first when later interrogation strategy because the defendant can't prove any error here  error analysis is wholly inappropriate and even if we assume just for the sake of argument that an error did occur plain air analysis is improper because the evidence in this case is not closely balanced there was extensive and overwhelming evidence against the defendant in this case we know that at trial not one but two eyewitnesses to the murder testified against the defendant both the victim's wife and the victim's son testified that the defendant came into their home and shot and killed of these proceedings i mean that seems to be with her saying with respect to the first argument you basically say well you know it was an error but you know kind of so what you know and with respect to this argument you're saying the same thing so what trial motion of her regarding the first issue in no way are we belittle ing or making light of the error that did occur however we are looking at a trial error in this case and that is subject to a harmless error analysis same thing in the seeburg claim here if we're looking at this from a plain air standpoint the evidence was not closely balanced two eyewitnesses we have a physical evidence at the scene of the crime his hat that was identified by agent sisto and that had his d n a evidence on it we have the finnick quite reasonable for us to assume that this defendant was the focus of the police investigation he will stay apart from the beginning i mean you just listed off a roster of things that would lead any reasonable police officer to believe this is the like why should we conclude that absolutist on everything that you have just said and that's in the record defendant was absolutely a person of interest at this time on the up not the person of interest that he was the target the person that they were looking student i'd like to know what the answer to that i apologize for i didn't answer it more clearly before but what we're looking at here is all of the evidence that was admitted at trial and if we're looking at what's going day but the defend it assumes facts that are in evidence when he assumes that the detective knew at the time that that f b i had belong to the defended there's no evidence in the record to show that at that time that something a doctor was connected by the police later on in the investigation so when i'm explaining all of this evidence that we had at trial which is separate and apart from defendant's confession all of that is far past  the investigation from the police and all of that's presented at trial so here as i was saying before two eyewitnesses the defendants hack we have the van and most importantly defendants go friendship on testified against him a trial and so she testif all of the details defendant's motivation for the murder his preparation his execution and their attempt to cover up this brutal crime so for those reasons and those stated in the people's brief we asked you a firm defendant they spoke about this whole situation she knew about the vehicle how it was tied to mr ball and some time between midnight and three in the morning after the  they told me that they're going after my girlfriend they're asking me what's how the story switch up i'm not free to leave i'm not walking out of here and that situation that only to the extent of that i think lopez and al pharo both suggest that it's a process that has to be respected as this court's noted in questioning opposing counsel that you can't excuse how bad the facts come out of trial or when you have serious procedural errors that undermine fundamental rights and in both instances