the morning your honor some may have please the court as your honors are aware i raise a number of issues in my briefs in this case i intend to focus on issues one in two but i would welcome this court's guide on whatever it wants to address your honor is the strongest and practically only evidence against oscar at trial with this confession it is undisputed that detective chicago police detectives first obtained this confession illegally in may of two thousand and seven and th same confession when he was rearrested in july although i asked her move to suppress all confessions the court suppressed only the may statement and then informed aster that he could not even mention the may interrogation at trial the court's ruling effectively rewarded the detective's misconduct by allowing the final confession to be used against him but preventing the jury from hearing why it was not reliable this court should reverse asters convictions and  new trial because the court erred in failing to suppress the july statement a s a sheppard even if the july statement was properly admitted the court off the court's mixed trial decision to bar oster from explaining why he confessed violated his fundamental rights to present the circumstances surrounding his confession turn into the first issue oscar is provided this court with a variety of reasons why the july confession should have been suppressed but i'd like to briefly focus on arguments today the first is that the july confession was obtained in violation of oscar's right to remain silence when i asked for was rearrested in july and brought back to the same interrogation room and interrogated by the same no not really no and the state hits this transcript where they say no not really does it make a difference  a difference between the two if it's you know said the other way it's one more unequivocal or more political what do you think or does it matter i don't think it matters i think the phrase no is  ambiguous regardless but if anything what he actually said is stronger because of a court i suppose could read it is the not really if that was if that was defining the then that that could perhaps be more ambiguous than what he actually said which is not really no but either way it's an unequivocal no to the question do you want to talk to us and that is an indication of the right to remain silent and based on that alone his confession should have been suppressed as well as the following confession to s n sheppard because it's undisputed that the detectives would eric did not scrupulously honor his right to remain silent the state did not even argument in its brief and has effectively conceded that point so it's not really no is an unambiguous invocation of the right for me silence the confession must be suppressed and people versus hernandez from this court in two thousand and five as well as in re r c from the illinois supreme court are the two most hopeful cases on this point in hernandez the a i say very similarly read the defendant his rights and asked if you want to talk in the defendant said no they say then attempted to clarify and this court held that the attempts to clarify or to continue the questioning was improper in in re r c the detective did very similarly what so what detectives would eric hear after the defendant said he didn't want to talk with the  said ok well you have that right but there is evidence against you and that's extremely similar to what sort of eric did here which is pause he did remind her that he had the right to me remain silent but then said ok but misty is the same things that are good about you the supreme court said that that's that's obviously an attempt to induce the defendant to waive the right he had just invoked and that's improper another reason independent reason the confession to july confession should have been suppressed is that it was in tape obtained in violation of his may request for counsel and this is an issue of first impression which was issue one the one in the briefs as to whether the maryland vs chats or exception and reinitiate interrogation but chats are specifically relied on the fact that the defendant would know that he only need to man's counsel to bring the interrogation to a halt that's because  request for counsel although also wasn't provided the interrogation was immediately stopped here that exception doesn't apply because the detectives ignored that request for counsel and continued the interrogation without ever provide so where the schatz or the reasoning be shined chats or does not apply to this case this court should fall back on the per se rule laid out in edwards versus arizona it is fires later stated to this attorney what are the four things the courts look at to decide whether there's been a subsequent rape or of the invocation of the right your honor there are two different test that i found in illinois law and i laid out both dennis people versus dennis is in the opening brief and then people versus color koski is in their reply brief in tennis the court said there are four factors the first is whether miranda warnings were given during the subsequent  second is the presence of intervening circumstances third the proximity in time between the two confessions and for the purpose or flagrantly of the misconduct over and help out dentist dentist dealt with a situation of time the workers whether they question about name state or another although that's not defining one way or the other and what c l to me tell kosky actually said that the three factors at the time that passes between the interrogations the if a significant period of time yess and then he goes back into custody it's less likely that his decision to continue to speak is the result of the course of his fear of of the story situation you that is that is one of the reasons and chatter and we would acknowledge that that reason was somewhat satisfied in this case in that oscar did have seven weeks but when asked who has brought back by the same detectives brought to the same interrogation room in reminded specifically by the detective who didn't want him to forget what had happened in may and that detective said remember what happened last year last time and you walked out of here a free man remember what you told us last time and quote everything was cool and then suggested that he tell the same story then i think that there any any break in custody that oscar head when he was quickly reminded of how coercive it that experience had ben seven weeks earlier not satisfied in this case because when he invoked his right to counsel interrogation continued for another twenty more than twenty four hours so she had to really shouldn't apply to this case the last reason the confession should be suppress it was because it was unbalanced terry the state has not attempted to contest the or to defend the detective's actions and may they have not contested the fact that the detectives threatened i asked her swore at him lied to him misstated the evidence misstated the law you're talking about me i am your honor the reason that may is something worth looking at is because because of the this court's decision and holocaust that has said that the day when an initial confession is unbalanced area that is a factor in determining whether a subsequent compassion is tainted by that initial coercion it's the state would have  where there was there a time period break like months may in a rearrest and then the subsequent statement you know your honor there wasn't there is certainly there wasn't seven weeks and this is longer but particularly where where that the first coercive and where the detective when even though there is a seven week break when the suspect of himself wants oster to remember that first course of experience reminds us to remember what happened last time and suggest that he should provide the same story the illinois supreme court held that the state has a quote heavy burden of proving that a subsequent statement is sufficiently intend you waited attenuated from an earlier illegal statement how to respond to the state yes that  was based entirely on documentary evidence entirely on the video and this court has equal access to the exact same evidence the trial court had so this isn't a situation where there is a deference to the credibility findings of a judge with watching a witness on the stand of when it prevented him from explaining why he gave the july compassion prior to the first day of trial this issue was heavily litigated in the court i would say they gave wavering rulings on th issue but the court had repeatedly told defense counsel that it would allow oscar to testify about the may interrogation is long as his testimony fell within an exception to the hearsay rule the court changed its position on the second day of trial and announced to defense counsel that that the jury would hear quote not a word about the may interrogation the court's reasoning seems to have been that evidence about the may interrogation was hearsay the course reporting statements made someone words so how i was basically you're saying even though you're saying it's not being offered through well you're under eight zero one rule of evidence a one c hearsay is an out of court statement that is to explain why he gave that confession and to present the jury with evidence suggesting that the confession was not credible not reliable and in people versus mela that this the illinois supreme court reiterated the crane ruling and said that when fundamental justice requires that a defendant have every opportunity to convert the state to controvert the state's proof and a defendant has a right to familiarize the jury with every circumstances surrounding the state's attention confession that's even kind of fight in statute by statute in illinois and that was simply violated here when the court said you cannot explain a word about the main tera patient even though it affects why you confessed and why the court also said that he could not even say were there brought him back to the same room in july he said remember what you told us last time i asked was not allowed to testify that he was not allowed to say the detective told him remember when he walked out of here last time remember asters confession should not have confession should not have been admitted at trial but it a minimum the trial court had a responsibility to allow him to explain why he confessed because the crowds were to not allow them even this basic right this court should reverse may please the court once again assistant state attorney peter moll teeth on behalf of the people defendant was convicted following a fair trial he was never precluded from testifying  be offered for the truth of the matter assert statements out i expect an offer of proof of defense did not take the first option did not take the second instead attempted the third when the trial began right on the opening opening statement fabricated the motion made in violation of the right to remain silent that this statement was given after west out so the end of third argument that the action is involuntary based upon tired set of circumstances including what is happening today but right now i'm just focusing in on not really known and in reviewing the transcripts and not really has to be looked upon as scrupulously honor a request for counsel and i think i think that really no probably is definitive on the on their question but there's more the next page  the detective says well that's the way it is but we want to talk to you about this thing you got anything to say about the con now in the videotape at that point back and forth indicating no the actor there questioned you got anything to say about the gun then the next question is you don't know you don't know something about the gun and mr flores says no and then he faces later so if you're talking about his demeanor or something later on that same statement there's a nother couple of remarks from the detective i do that all the time no big deal i may add this is just something i had to do you know that's what they pay me to do you just try to make it look like this the bad guy here i want to hear what you got to say about here's mr florus i ain't gonna say nothing about nothing i ain't gonna say nothing about nothing can we have we is there any indication here that this person doesn't want to talk it's not an indication that he wants a cut off questioning there's a he's asked a specific specific subject matters regarding god regarding the so fence and he states very relaxed mood he has is it out he has its hands and back of his head he's requiring and and the statement is kind of kind of on the net and his situation there it's not think your premise is that is that each of these times when he says no not really no or no that's in response to a  question about a specific area as opposed to a general question you want to talk to i guess have two questions first of all can you make that argument if they never ask them do you want to talk to us if they just go right into the specifics and they never get a general statement i'm not to talk to about nothing clear if the individual indicates in any manner at any time prior to or during questioning that he wishes to remain silent the interrogation was seats and that's really the rule now there are cases to say it has to be a clear indication but to my way of thinking no means no but in the u s versus smethurst the person's illinois request responses which is kind of what you keep hammering on that he kept answering questions he kept responding in that case the supreme court said you cannot use post request responses to further interrogation you cannot use them to cast what they called retrospectively doubt on the clarity of the initial request itself so if he if this is clear if he said not really no and if we interpret no to me no we should not look at this responses to questions they just kept questioning him he sat there sometimes there was a pause and the actors about fifty was in the videotape that are not transcribed normally the reporter would but they're not if there are multiple causes the point is is that he did continue to answer questions human nature tells us that if somebody asked questions you normally respond it's just the actual response that's human nature but that doesn't mean that he didn't help those detectives in no uncertain terms that you want to talk rights equally without merit is defendant some statement that he that he had invoked that right that the counsel that at that time it's clear on the record he was talking about the state's attorney it's clear on the record that these defectives that they did the same thing he he asked for a wire they just ignored it they just kept going they kept the question should we consider this as we look at what happened in july before any  intervention of any the detectives one of them was the same it was in there before for a lawyer before they did the stuff so should we look at that elated his continuing response that he would that we have a head moving back and forth or is awfully indicating oh we've got then an actual apple response no and then finally we wrap it up with i didn't say anything about  we are two of three with that that he hoped his right to remain and we have to reach the issue of the statement to the state's attorney what you believe  they place the court i have to point out all the first is in response to the state's contention that oscar only invoked his right very specific quote very specific in vocation of his right and there are a lot of problems with that argument which i think your honour's have adequately question the state on but what i would like to point out is even if he did only invoke a very is only a very specific invocation detectorists with derek still violated that specific indication by questioning  whether a significant amount of time alas in this case that's not satisfied because continues there are repeated further interrogations by swe derek and only a few hours later the essay shows up the third is whether a fresh set of miranda warnings is