motion to suppress her statement the court aired a number of ways i'd like to begin with and pocus on the stand one cruise issue this court held in san juan cruz that but agents read two conflicting sets of rights one that includes the right to free attorney and one that does not that is inherently confusing at the end of the case they said that the agents can clarify this confusion by indicating that the administrative rights that don't include the right to free attorney no longer apply i think the agents in this case tried to do that but they didn't succeed and there are a number of reasons why the first was they just had lousy spanish throughout the advise all to m about her administrative rights and the administrative procedures they uttered sentences like and your administrative rights no longer belong they later said there are several rights that belong to you i mean these are excuse me that you belong to the i counted seven six in britain in brackets inserted by the government translator and then on the case that the spanish was was kind of shoddy and in addition to that the terms they used changed so they said right in the first iteration i've been a stranger to notices and then procedures and those terms simply aren't interchangeable rights are not the same things as procedures they're not the same things as notices but i think the most important thing is that really what the agents did if you look at the totality of the circumstances is explained to mr miller is that she wasn't going to be removed anymore but instead was going to be prosecuted for a crime or at least charged with a crime and there are a number of reasons why that's true if you look at the first statement what they said was at the start of this you were given advisement of rights in which you asked to return to your country as soon as possible so not an advisement of rights in which we told you that you didn't have the right to a free attorney but that you had a right to contract one if you can afford one and they said in which you asked to return to your country soon as possible later on the agent in clarifying says when you got here they did have some simple documents just a paragraph for you to choose whether you wanted to return to mexico as soon as possible or with this case and  it gets a little garbled because the spanish isn't great or with this case in the war against a judge ok so again the indication there is not the rights that we read to you that you don't have a right to a free attorney that those rights are going away the rather you're not going to be i think that's true ok and so you or your contention is that the difference between the right to an attorney in the ministry setting as opposed to the right to free attorney in the criminal setting was not the one that's the crux crux of the argument that's correct here and i think that's ultimately i think the challenge in this case is i think we all know what the agents were getting at we're familiar with  we're familiar with the sort of advise all that has to come we're lawyers and so it's it's sometimes tempting to fill in and say well yeah this wasn't perfect but i kind of know what they were getting at and that may be true we know what they were getting at but as seen one cruise instructs we have to you can't presume that the suspect knows what his or her rights are is your suggestion then that the court here should sort of develop a new miranda text or do investigations i personally think that would be helpful this happens all the time in san diego there are these sorts of investigations that are after him and on half half administrative so somebody who is removable but also charge of a crime i think that sort of advise would be happy it would be happy to have that but it's certainly not necessary no no it's certainly not necessary i'm not asking the court to create a new rule i think the rule is pretty clear from san juan cruz this has to be made clear to the defendant however you do it i think certainly the law enforcement has decided rather than leave it up to individual agents to make miranda rights clear we've created a preprinted point that says this is what this is what you read to people and then they have that translated into spanish this is what you read to somebody who speaks spanish might be advisable for them to do that here too but i don't think the court has to say this is exactly what you what you need to say that the issue really is here were they clear about it and i think it's a it's abundantly clear that they they were not clear  the sentence that says if you don't have the means to employ an attorney one will be designated for you before in interrogation if you wish is that the sentence that you are taking issue is yes  miranda rights that is inherently confusing and the agents did not clarify that for this year by the same time you know they didn't number one she was read her administrative rights right the claim that she didn't understand those an irrelevance but no that's not my point now number two the agent said you've been read some rights your situation has changed now you're going to be prosecuted and he read her been read your rights and that now changes but just as step one we read you your administrative rights time passes you're now being charged now we're going to read you your miranda rights w no your honor in fact that's i think that's precisely the fact pattern of san juan cruz because well this is what he's got to say is what i read you earlier is no longer operative that's correct well didn't he say that now he i think he tried it again i think he tried it but to go back to the quotes what he said so here's the question when he said rights because they only mention rights once they never mention the right to an attorney in regard to the administr your these rights that we read before no longer apply the question is what did miss ramirez understand when they said the rights that we read before so what they literally said was at the start of this you were given an advisement of rights in which you asked to return to your country soon as possible had they set at the beginning of this you were read a set of rights in which we advised you that you did not have the right to free attorney that right no longer applies we would not be here that's not what they said what they said was misleading because they what they are saying is your rights your rights the procedures the notices they use all those different words relate to the ability to ask to go back to mexico so quickly as possible and say you can't do that anymore right they said it we're going to be different in other words we're to different arena now you're going to be charged criminally so you can no longer contract and here are your right right and so what they need to clarify is that but those all the rights the ministry of rights no longer apply and i don't think that if you read through their advise all they ever make that clear its  have by her right she thought she had a right to go back to mexico they're saying you don't have that right in the longer and that's what you understood not the difference between a paid and free attorney that's exactly my argument thank you counsel your honor's and then please the court my name is sandra chang and i represent the united states in this case the agents very clearly told the appellant to disregard her administrative rights and thus they complied with  at no cost to the government in relation to the input procedures for deporting her or a basis of thinking that she might believe that her administrative rights including the right to go back to mexico well i think the end ministered rights included her right to go back to mexico but i think they were broader than that and when the agents explained the it when the agents engaged in a conversation with appellant to explain the difference in the proceeding that she was about to enter into they explained to her that those rights referring to administrative rights apply only in immigration procedures for deporting you from the united states and so they were talking about the rights that they had previously given to her relative to immigration proceedings and then after they explained that to her they very clearly told her now you're going to be arrested for federal crime s and you should understand that those administrative rights no longer belong and then they shoot her attention specifically to the miranda warnings that are to follow with a never told her you have the right before to get an attorney if you could pay for him now we're going to charge you with a crime and guess what now you can get an attorney when we pay for never said made that clear today well under understand one cruise what the agents have to do is to tell the defendant to disregard what they had told her about her administrative rights and that requires her to remember what they told her and they told you two things you can go back to mexico and you can get an attorney you can pay for him that's correct but i think this year you say you agree with me they never said now this is what we're saying to you and then told her about those two different rights they just they said you're administrative is i mean their administrative employees they use this language but the question is this was a language adequate to tell her that now she had a right to a free attorney well they said that when they gave her the miranda warnings in after they said that when again for the morning after and they not only gave it to her orally but they also provided a preprinted for that she was to read and  signed and so you know when the agents told her you should understand that the administrative rights no longer no longer belong and they told her from now on all the criminal rights to follow will apply to hear a case they convey to her very clearly now focus on the miranda warnings that we're going to give you because what we told you before you should disregard and so by saying that they complied with c n n crews but in this case the agents actually went above and beyond what was required in soon one cruise because they told her a second time to disregard hurt administrative warnings by telling her the administrative notice is they gave you right or for administrative proceeding they no longer apply because criminal charges will be filed against you and then they proceeded even further that by reminding her repeatedly i believe at least three times that the administrative procedures would be supplanted by criminal procedures and that they were shifting from one arena to  that the agents very squarely complied with suman crews in this case but even if the agents did air the government with it the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because i think it's important for the court to consider that the post arrest statements that were made by the appellant was not a confession it was merely introduced by the government in a second trial to show or to really cast doubt on appellant story for why she was in the area where she picked up the alien in this case santiago so it was not a it was not a confession and it's probative value really paled in comparison with in the second trial but i think it's important for the court to consider that that was not the only difference there was a second difference in the face and that evidence concerned evidence relating to a cell phone that was found in the appellants vehicle that was missing a sim card in the first trial the defense counsel in closing argued and really full to the government for not presenting any evidence regarding the operation of that phone and for not conducting an investigation into finding the sim card and that closing argument can be found in records site four three three and four three  four defense counsel argued even more importantly there was no evidence that they even look for referring to the sim card they didn't look for it because they didn't think it was important or that it had happened so this was a a classic argument faulting the quality of the government's investigation and this can be quite effective in the second trial defense counsel did not argue this regarding the phone in closing and the reason that they did not argue it is because in the second trial the government presented evidence that the service provider had not even activated that phone and so the phone there was clear cut evidence in the second trial that the phone was not used and so it was not really relevant or at issue in the smuggling of that and that for closed of united states versus how the a court only needs to hold an evidence rehearing when the parties allege facts with enough specificity clarity and definitiveness to lead the district court to conclude that there is and i just did it issue of fact here there was no disputed issue the government and the both parties agreed about the translation of the miranda warning and the translation comes out to if you do not have the means to an employment attorney one will be designated for you before any interrogation if you wish the parties of this also did not dispute the meanings of specific words it  you know at bottom the declaration provided by the defense interpreter that the warning was ambiguous was facially inadequate to inform the judge that there was any ambiguity because he took issue with two things one was the word needs he in the declaration he argued that the word means can mean more than one thing and it was not limited to financial means but the government  not dispute that below the government agreed and also he agreed he argued that the word employed means that you have to pay for one services the government also did not dispute that the law the government agreed with that and so  the defense interpreters declaration saying that it was ambiguous based on these two words simply was facially insufficient because when you put those words together in the negative you get if you don't have the means to employ an attorney which really wanker's argument you can assume that the miranda warning warning was perfect someone crews had a perfect miranda warning it's the conflicting rights that are really the ask you about this language in c and long cruise on page three eighty nine we talked about advising san juan to disregard the administrative rights when we use that term administrative rights in favor of those that were react to him and to miranda so why doesn't that my language cover what was done in this case because well first of all i think that that command requires that the agency is the same sort of us precisely in ways that one would one would require of the miranda warning itself so when when and i think best question is sort of got to the government but i am reading the actual langer shorthand line did not say you have it the particular language has to be used for anything it just says that look the agent should have clarified his statement then didn't say how precise it had to be or advising san juan to disregard the administrative rights in favor of those that were read to him under miranda and what i think the agents did in this case is they told miranda it's not your honor and the reason is that when women send one transcript says administrative rights and this may go back to judge basic questions when when it talks about administrative rights it is not talking about all of your rights in removal proceedings it's specifically