disagree i think that the oral warning explained the written warning because at that time then detected explain to the defendant that because of the tribal member the tribe would pay for a tribal attorney in tribal court then he explained the travel court he would receive and the trainee appointed by the federal court or by the court so he was told he would receive a free attorney the issue was whether or not he would have to contact that attorney and detective good cells told him in tribal court he would have to contact an attorney in federal court he would explained that he after they finished reading the rights together just that detective can ask the defendant if he had in questions but when he was going through the rights after each right he asked the defendant if you understood that right and the defendant indicated that he did  they went over the waiver portion of the right form wherein the spend in agree to waive his right indicated on the way a written waiver that he understood his rights and he wished to waive them he indicated that he did not want to lawyer at that time defendant if he was willing to speak with them and the defendant indicated that he had a question particularly what he would be charged with and again the defendant was told that he would be facing tribal charges and federal charges out and get his own lawyer or would a lawyer be provided and come visit him in jail or whatever who had the burden of getting a lawyer who had the responsibility and number two was it clear that he would have a lawyer appointed to attorney at the time the written waiver portion which can be found on page one twenty eight of the excerpts of record i do not one attorney at this time ok and you say that was not confused at all  interview that occurred along with china's form of time the timing of when he would get the lawyer was not in question under both of those rights he had the right to an attorney at the time of questioning and that's what the rights indicate the issue is whether or not he would have to contact that lawyer if the government's position is that was not confusing for this defendant under the totality of the circumstances in this case and these rights reasonably conveyed his miranda rights to him but i think in a question was explaining to him that if he were going to end up in federal court and an attorney would be furnished and free of charge that's right and maybe it still wasn't clear whether he would have to look for her not but if he were to end up charged  understanding these rights would you be willing to talk to me about this about what we need to talk about this problem the things that i don't know i mean i don't even know when i'm being charged with right now so that it's back to some confusion regarding you know in his mind explained the fact that he was speaking to you he could be facing two different entities or charges in tribal court and in federal court at that point he was not charged with anything it was right after his arrest and had not i think you're right i mean factually  though is that the warnings are not entirely consistent i don't know if this case has come up in arizona before but has there been some effort to you know to sort of you know accordance with  very very very close and why isn't it it seems to me to be pretty similar in terms of the confusion and the warnings  behind the face of the warnings that if the agency alone could clarify those warnings for the defendant that that would have been sufficient to convey those miranda warnings to the fed and that's what happened in this case the agent did the best he could to clarify those warnings were inconsistent first of all the written warning so that mr harrison had a right to an attorney at his own expense the oral warning that that detective game was that the right to an attorney who was quote basically free but that he would have to make contact with that attorney on his own and then the federal warning was and i disagree with the government and in  be contacted by him or would be appointed by the government prior to questioning because in dickerson vs united states most recent supreme court decision or a recent supreme court decision on the miranda warning the court said that the  fundamental warnings included the right to the presence of an attorney which the government argues and also the right that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so there's a quarrel with that wanting that  not told he had the right to an attorney before questioning that's correct that's correct your honor he was never told in the warnings here which is different from san juan cruz the san juan cruz miranda warnings were adequate in this situation the miranda warning was not adequate because he was never told that an attorney could be appointed for him prior any questioning of the sort of the sired and furthermore he was in tribal custody at that particular time being interrogated by a tribal officer so the the inference would be he would not have been its right to have an attorney appointed for him even if there were federal charges prior to that questioning because he was not in federal custody in that the the attorney the court appointed attorney would only come to be nothing in the record that changes that he just simply was not told later on find a way if you need an attorney one will be appointed for you before the questioning never says you could have one if you want to priors a question i don't want he answers something that hasn't been told him at that point well the problem is that the warnings given to him never told him you have a right to have an attorney appointed prior found that it would be impossible for the accused to know what his rights were at that point whether it was a basically free attorney an attorney at his own expense whether he would have to contact that attorney and whether he had  to have that attorney present before any questioning that's the problem with the government's argument that that the clarification here was was sufficient  the one other point on san juan cruz the clarification that this court talked about in san juan cruz the court mentioned the fact that that the the juan cruz to ignore in this situation ignore what i said on the tribal rights because your federal rights are you have a right to appoint counsel before any questioning that detective distinction between what travel rights are and what federal rights are if you go all the way back to this court's cases in mendiola and conall mendiola was one where it was inside hand and there were local rights and and federal rights and in those cases the distinction was made between what were local rights and what were federal rights but that was not held sufficient to convey to the defendant clearly in an unambiguous least fifth amendment rights the court does have any further questions attorney before and during questioning to have the right had the right to an attorney even if you couldn't afford one the warning also went on to indicate that we have no way of giving you a lawyer but one will be appointed to you or for you when you go to court or in this the record indicates you have the right to talk to an attorney and have your attorney present during questioning the only difference was right with regard to how that attorney would be it obtained based on the telly the circumstances