here there is no question what was said because we have a videotape of the entire interrogation the videotape or others in spanish but we also have a translated transcript of everything that  is a state of mind which sometimes may be established through circumstantial evidence such as what people say yes he did so that makes this case just like the smith case the u s supreme court case where he requested counsel and then in the next sentence or to backtrack and agreed to be questioned without coun right now the officer no no no wait understand what you're doing first to still talk to him about do you understand yes and he says yes yes he's innocent if you understand what you doing later but later on in the discussion the detectives tells him if you know talk to us then we're not going to know your side of the story of the this is stand we're not going to know your side of the story of the state's attorney is going to go go ahead and decide whether to charge you with your wife without ever having heard your side story this is of course the standard interrogation technique but it are we going to wait for a jury to come here that i mean you would probably agree that that's just a question of the officer could answer that question and answer that question so that it's pretty equivocal if it's a question but so my question to you is it doesn't turn to the fact that there's a period stipulation that this translation was accurate so i have to go by that but as i said to justice breyer just now even if it were a question the question still assumes  i may go on the second point and mental state required for this form on first degree murder is defined by statute statutes that he knows that such acts create a strong probability of death  first to the first one was done by the twenty four hours after the incident where the defendant's son was harmed by police on march second around eleven that night there was a subsequent interview done around eight fifteen the following day on march third was to not get recorded and he third recorded interview probably three hours later about a letter forty five pm on march third  what about the issue it doesn't sound like there was a green deal of testimony taken after the actual sentencing hearing in mind and what the judge believed he was required to do on this date i think is asking presumably counsel and the defendant cuts in and says all right if we were going to just base upon the transcript he says all right ok all right it's all the capitals perhaps he was yelling that regarding the second issue for me to go forward  standards why don't they just put them all on one section instead of having one million and two leave or however the statutory s consulates tell us that there is you know this doesn't make sense it's a confusing standard there's only one standard but don't have two separate standards are two separate set of factors set out by the two separate sections yes i don't know why  to counsel and he expressed a desire to have counsel and the officer understood and i think that's the main point that i want to make today is that what's this really despise it over here is the officer in the detective trujillo's response it makes sense only if the detective understood that he asked for counsel then you don't want to talk to us that makes sense doesn't make sense and it might be reasonable to assume that the officer statement means you made a statement it's you understand what i said when i started earlier that just because there are words on the record they don't necessarily mean what they appear to be moved so that's why we have the videotape itself disagree as to what transpired here when it comes down to what was reasonable for a police officer it becomes even more a comes now i suppose you could say that he didn't really want the attorney to come but there's no reason to think that his concern was he was going to have to pay for it when the tentative told would never be paid for