and she's admitted that practice in the state of new york and florida brian quarters are quarters there is a law clerk to judge hamilton is admitted to practice now annoy me has his undergraduate and his law school undergraduate degrees from while bash is law school degrees from indiana university moller school of law and he's admitted to practice in the state of indiana ala higgins is a staff attorney who's admitted to practice in the state of illinois degrees from the university of florida her law school degree is the paul tells the then overload as a staff attorney undergraduate degrees from university of michigan law school degree is from the university of michigan and she's admitted to practice in the state of new york your honors i moved there mission am happy to create your motion and i welcome all of you to the bar of this court we appreciate the service that you have given us thus far and we look forward to many more years seeing you you know mark room so you may now turn in take the confession that you have put together from the various things that das he said was from a constitutional point of view voluntary or to put it more accurately whether the state court determination that it was voluntary was a reasonable this murder how could you but whether mr gassy was responsible for it or whether he just went after the fire was slit is a serious question absolutely the investigators just nudge the confession seventy four that was when he was seven years old the next test he took was seventy six the next on a seventy eight in the most recent task when he was sixteen or seventeen was eighty three and he was sixteen when he was being questioned by the officers that's that's almost a direct quote from the supreme court in early patter the ninth circuit reversed a conviction on the theory that the state court had considered a factor that the ninth circuit had mentioned in it's fact of course  quoted the standard directly from the supreme court it mentioned all of it but how did it approach it it went through what it considered to be all of the relevant factor it mentioned them briefly that's true but that is the s more much more detail that's exactly right and the wisconsin court of appeals also said that it was basing its finding on the trial court's opinion and the trial court was much more thorough it went through all of the relevant factors thoroughly so this idea that it failed to actually consider the totality of the circumstances is outlandish quite frankly well no it's not outlandish at all this case is very much like brumfield against cain from the supreme court where somebody with a great number of limitations  is pressured and a person with a literal cast of mind being told if you tell us the truth the truth will make you free or rather biblical allusion of course we know and being told as many times as dad if you just work with us everything will be fine leading up to saying can i go to my sixth period class suggest that there were false promises of lenient  and the mental limitations i'll just call it that there's plenty of evidence whether he's in the bottom five percent of the bottom eight percent whatever but i believe that the standards that you're referring to of circumstances show with he was told at least twenty eight times during the interview that everything was ok that they already knew the truth and it wasn't his fault twenty eight times they also took numerous precautions to protect against ask an end because you mention the first interview when we think of the totality of his interactions with the police officers he sees the same officers on a couple of occasions twice and then i believe it's the february twenty seventh interview them in march first interview shouldn't we evaluate his interactions with them on the basis of all of that if we're really doing the totality absolutely and that's why we're so he makes a promise itself that if  promise of leniency in even one of the earlier ones that's a problem i think that would be relevant yes yes i mean that in that february twenty seventh they actually said they were not acting as officers but instead as father warning throughout at the end of that first interview after making much of the fact that they said that they were acting as if they were his father that doesn't have any bearing on it i think so it's a stand there certainly but it doesn't force the conclusion that his confession was involuntary is a correct and is it correct that he told the police officers during the course of these interviews that his uncle had told him not to talk to the police royer played in that but that was one of his accounts all right yes that's right i also want to point out that at the end of the very first interview after making multiple vegas very similar to the ones they made on march first the officers asked asked specifically they said did we make you any promises he said yes that i could leave whenever i wanted and i didn't have to answer any of your questions i think that's pretty strong evidence that he didn't hear any promises from there sort of vague stay out of how do we take the can i go back to school i mean the kinds of things he that they were eliciting from him with quite a bit of work as a judge rover's opinion certainly project most people if they saw what jesse saw wouldn't have participated well but i'm just saying doesn't that tell you that he is just a person who doesn't get it they told him if you talk to us everything is going to be fine we have your back where your father promises are many i think the statements show at most but that's he doesn't understand how awful it is to rape and murder someone if anything should we make of the fact that in march of this year one of the nation's largest police consulting firms the one that trains officers in chicago new york and federal you take that into consideration fairly the constitution does not incorporate what a particular organization thinks are beck's best practices and just because that one organization thinks they are best practices doesn't mean that they in fact are best practices one institution that is now training the large city police forces and federal agencies that's right it's one organization among many and this is a case that has obviously garnered a lot of attention so the fact that they use it to get some attention of their own i think should not be given a whole lot of play can yasser arafat that they did not cede him i mean think of trying to get him to talk about the jewish shot in the head it's like a twenty questions game i cut her hair i slit her throat you punched or and finally says oh come on you know who shot her in the head over and over the facts are given by the police officers to d'asti and jesse agrees with what they said absolutely goes out and talks to his mother and says i didn't really do it they got into my head i'll give you two very important details too detail how do you know that at that point he realizes that he's been caught in a lie and quite logically but i expected lee he says well i was biking and i could hear it or like what here what scream but there by the time these interviews yes that's true right about it a lot of detail that he could not possibly have gotten from anywhere i think the most telling examples are his memories of teresa he remembers her screaming help me and how she looked naked and chained up to the bed he remembered her on friday and that and that's that's not something that initially in fact there are contradictions in his accounts they didn't traditions are right they didn't feed him the fact that she was handcuffed to the bed that can look at the corroborating circumstances around it can't we and that can certainly have some bearing on it on the russian i don't think you can know the court supreme court has consistently said that reliability is a question for the jury it's not something you voluntariness so there is a good answer there's a lot of corroborating evidence in this case but that's not something you consider in a hideous case well but this is so here we have to think of the theory that we're operating under there's some discussion  square ruling by the supreme court of the united states relatively recently finding an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding it's an ad can supply name but it doesn't matter it's a twenty two fifty four d to claim so i think we do have to look at the evidence here but actually i want you for a minute if you just take two minutes of your argument time to discuss the ineffectiveness of  since the district court is obviously horrified by that the state courts are harsh side by his behavior they removed him from the case and he actually said this at some point i consider myself to be representing the remarks representing his it's is though his it's worse than having no lawyer at all he would have been better off pro se he would have been better off with somebody who was not helping either the victim's family or the prosecution  removed eight months before trial but the harm was done the harm in the terms it big you use these confessions at the trial the harm was already done by the time kaczynski what he did had absolutely no effect on the primary confession the march first confession kaczynski wasn't around until after the confession came and so there's no arguable effect on of the center piece of it doesn't do anything to try to ameliorate this to try to  bring a solid defense of involuntary ness of that of the confession that's absolutely not true he moved to suppress the confession and if you read the transcript he made a lot of the same arguments  conflicting counsel counsel with an actual conflict of interest you're done the sixth amendment gives you the right to counsel you have to show an adverse effect right but regardless the kyler claim is foreclosed on he just because the supreme court that he had any relationship with the prosecution that he had any sort of financial incentives he made some bad this is not a desperate matter i mean you could represent somebody without being compensated well we we think the color clean is clearly foreclosed by m a very clear statement from the supreme court in the can is the court was considering successive representation so you had a lawyer that was representing two different people that's very close to multiple concurrent representation and yet even there the so because you do have active representation of conflicting interests well our position is that it's clearly foreclosed so i'd like to move back to the voluntar significant change in his demeanor when he's left alone or with his mother inners of the world i think that actually supports the state's position here so at the end if you watch the twenty minutes we watch the twenty minutes when his mother comes in he spends ten minutes as mom is crying saying why did you do it why did you keep it a secret why didn't you tell me she says you knew it was wrong right looks like you not the whole time he's got his head in his hands he can't bring himself to look at her and then when she leaves he starts crying for the first time the only time that i'm aware that he cries and i think i think it's pretty clear that he's guilty i think that's why he confessed because he needed to get out all of those things that were in his mind and i want to go back to the memories of teresa that i was mentioning before because i think that's one of the primary evidences that his confession was voluntary the way he volunteered those details  he remembered her crying and pleading with him not to do it while he raped her she remembered her desperately trying to move away as every came at her with a knife he remembers her breathing after every stab her in the stomach and she still struggling to breathe after he cut her throat he remembers that her belly wasn't moving as they carried her out of the garage and he remembered the awful smell as her body burned none of those memories were suggested to him by the in a way that you're going to like how can i answer this quote unquote correctly and you know i don't his very diction is so  did he just doesn't know what he's talking about the counter to that is that you have at least thirty five different times that he resists the officers question so they asked him six different questions on four separate occasions about whether he shot teresa and these were some of the most leading questions they said we know you shot her too isn't that right he says no they say how many times did you shoot her when the gun was in your hands he says it never was in my arms so they asked fifteen questions on six separate occasions about whether the fire was going when he got over there he consistently said that it was answers every which way and some of these questions whether it's not the fire whether it's about where's the car in the garage did you go first you go later he's all over the map and you can pick a sentence here in a sentence they are knit together a confession but it's not what really happened it's true he changes some details here and there is important but that's exactly what you would expect for a traumatic memory when he picks up on a fact that they have suggested to him when he's answered what you wouldn't expect if he truly had been coerced is that he would continue to resist the officers and he did there was eight questions in a row about whether they used the wires in the garage for anything he never gave into that why not if you gave into everything else why would he not give in to something like that because he just could he explains at one point does he just couldn't think of anything he couldn't come up with another thing to say and he at the end of his rope a few times and just has not enough imagination so you're talking about the question who shot her in the head and i think there's a very good explanation for why you couldn't think of  it put yourselves in the investigator shoes for a moment there trying to figure out what happened they don't know the details they know they are telling him we know everything brendon they know she was shot in the head so they know that they think that's how she died and they're talking with about what happened in the bedroom and then he says every stab her i cut her neck every choked her and they're thinking well she must be dead now so why wouldn't even reshoot a dead woman and doesn't make any sense so he must have shot her in the bedroom and so they try and get t elicit that detail and he can't think of it because his mind is in the bedroom they don't find out until later that every actually shot her in the garage like ten minutes later and so that's why he couldn't think of it in the moment because they haven't focused in the bedroom and so there's a very good explanation for why you couldn't think of it and this just goes to show all he's trying to do is figure out what's in their mind how can i replicate what you're waiting to hear and then you're going to praise me and say good for you you know you're going to feel better after this and now we move on and everything's go ok we're in your corner friended that doesn't explain all of the details that he volunteers that were never suggested to him color sounds smells all the numbers have to research that i mentioned before you know i'm not sure that all of those and we can discuss this with your opponents i think that the it's not nonexistent very short and he explains at the trial that he's made up some of those quote details from a book he read yeah i think that explanation is landis quite frankly especially because the detail that he's talking about  was handcuffed to the bed that came in response to a question that didn't even call for that detail so they're walking him into the bedroom and i ask him was she alive and he says well she was handcuffed to the bet the idea that he at that possibly he was remembering he was in his mind if he remembered the detail he remembered vividly the image of teresa handcuffed to the bed and he brought forth that detail when they asked was she alive nothing investigator said  with such a vulnerable person it was not what i would call an interrogation it was a you know tell me what i want to hear and there was some minor deception to be sure but the cases say that that's ok no i don't think it was major a lot of the things that the investigators actually said were true psychological coercion a lot of the things that they told him were true so their statements will go to bat for you for example they did in fact go to bat for him if he it stuck with  story and testified against avery i suspect they would have that's exactly right so they went back to the prosecutor and said yes he should get some credit he's been cooperating with us and he probably would have gotten a lot of credit if he had not recanted his confession we may not even dieter it out that it's just for your information i think this white card means you're in rebuttal time and it's up to you you can talk to us further or not i like to say if the remainder of my time for about thank you certainly otherwise what we do about that it is your honor and may it please the court deference by definition does not preclude a relief that is what we know from the supreme court belief is reserved for cases where the application of clearly established law even without law is stated in general principles has been unreasonably misapplied in the state courts and that's precisely what we see here is your best argument  stronger under twenty to fifty forty one or two your honor i believe those two arguments are intertwined so we asked for relief on both the two grounds and on day one grounds here the directive from the supreme court that dictates the result in this case was articulated in miller versus fenton where the court said that involuntary and it is not only concerned with inherently coerc techniques but it equally encompasses techniques that are course of only as applied to the unique characteristics of this particular suspect miller looking at the circumstances here at best not when judged by the standard of an adult woman with an intellectually challenged sixteen year old there were no assurances or promises there has to be a concrete promise fraudulent promise of leniency for it to free is what they told him now your honor it is true unquestionably true that you and i would understand that to be a quote from the book of john and idiom but the record in this case is indisputable clear that idioms are the one thing that brenda deathy cannot understand he has no choice because of his disability or stood plainly that he was being encouraged to be honest and to get it off his chest and that the exchange for his talking was to be set questioned the way he was certainly not your honor this is a longstanding federal law and there have been many cases with many interrogations of mentally limited individuals that have come into evidence without any problem this is a unique  impairments undisputed record that he was unable to process idioms combined that that statement that honesty will set you free with as sure as i'm sorry that's not true that statement was not true your honor certainly not and you see him believing of course that it will be true because you see him expecting after confessing to rape and murder that he's going to go back to school and even after the officers disabuse him of that notion they say to him brenda know we're police officers right and because of what you said the law won't let us let you go he still clings to that allusion and he says is it only for one day even if they attempted to correct him then it's still wrong honesty will not set him free that's exactly it even if the police attempted to correct his misunderstanding of it and do any good they only attempted to correct that misunderstanding after he confessed when they finally break the promise and my colleague on the other side for the state of wisconsin spoke to brennan's demeanor after the officers told him that they were going to arrest spoke to the fact that at that moment the first thing he did was ask for his mother at that moment he began to weep why only then because that's the moment the bargain was broken for him that's the moment i understood what bargain that honesty and repeating back the story that the officers gave him would set him free so there was a bargain there was a bargain your honor repeat back to the story that we want to hear and in exchange you will be set free it was a bargain that was understood as such because of  which is precisely what the supreme court has directed us to do to define coercion in terms of how a reasonable person in that suspects position would have perceived and that's because it is lower i q and and his impairments and his disability and his age yes your hon and the fact that he is ninety five percent more suggestible than the population that's exactly as i think bill could have a psychological condition suggestibility in the older or have a higher i of lower intelligence or that he's this or he's that he's a package and so i want to ask you whether you think the correct legal inquiry is whether a reasonable person reasonable functioning adult would have coercive or if we're supposed to take all aspects of brandon as an individual and ask that question we are to take all aspects of brendan's personal characteristics into account and what's your best case for that that this is not something that's just an objective standard yarbrough versus all right oh direct political of the courts to examine the actual mindset of the suspect in a would have been coerced which is of a piece with a long standing line of the court case law healy vs ohio would not exist if we were to judge all interrogation tactics against the will of an adult healy tells us the opposite that which would leave a man   police need to take account of all circumstances read the police really will have access to of psychological background school records and all the information that's been interrogating high school very quick i would say your honor that taking this case as an example these interrogators knew at the least that he was sixteen years old may still question him there's no doubt about that but say thinking they may as long as it doesn't over bare his will but they cannot say things that will land on this defendant as they promise they should never say things like i'm a cop but i'm not right now i'm a parent when you've got a sixteen year old in the interrogation room they shouldn't say things like we know you're scared of arrest but you've got nothing to worry about everything will be all right you're so you're creating new law now there is no case that says that and we're here on twenty to fifty four d review a federal court cannot create a new law and he review and that's what you're asking for in this case it's just flatly in permissible under all the supreme court's let me be very very clear i am not asking for this court to erect a rule that anything the officer said will always be proscribed for going forward and aren't you focusing i mean if that's why i want to come back to twenty to fifty four d two because that's a very factually bound circumstance and it's the decision based on all of the evidence that with this package of fa the finding that this was a voluntary can vent confession was not even a possible finding on this record that doesn't create new law the supreme court just now in brumfield two years ago to be an accurate twenty fifteen so that the twenty to fifty four d inquiry asks you to look at an unreasonable determination of the facts isn't that what you're following that is exactly what we're following your honor this is a very fact about a case and there was an unreasonable terminations in the facts in this case and i would also imagine that the facts in this case are unlikely to recur which fact finding do you take issue with i take issue with the state courts finding that there were no promises of leniency made to this defendant which is what the district court identified as the two error well that's asking for a new law because you're asking for us to hold that this biblical quote beyond the pale and no reasonable judge could disagree with that that is asking for a new law by definition because no court says that i am asking for this court to apply miller versus fenton which both the state court versus rolling in the tenth circuit which did the same thing but whether it's treated under d two or d one i think we are left with the ultimate conclusion being the same isn't the did the deal as i see it anyway maybe this is too literal the d one aspect of this is whether in the end this was a voluntary concession the supreme court has said that that question raised the question of law because the constitutional fact that it's  matter of law the d to question is the more granular one looking at all of these transcripts are are there one or more promises of leniency should you look at this this way and the court ha is barback is the cherry williams against taylor case dad the facts don't need to be an exact match you're going to look at these promises and see whether they actually amount to a promise of lenien that's exactly right on the court has reiterated that more recently and petty vs quarterman and marshall vs roger is clearly established federal law may be found in general principles we need not identify a case with factual identity at a high level etc we didn't case could come along when somebody would say you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free and that would not be a promise of leniency i would imagine for most people that would not be a promise of leniency that's correct exactly right so there's no automatic character to the rule if it's a d two problem was this a promise or was this not a promise there is no automatic character we must not about these tactics in isolation the supreme court directs us to do otherwise they must be evaluated in conjunction with the package of  das he asks to go back to school is so powerful it speaks to his understanding of the bargain that has been struck so i would like your response to the points mr berger was making about the fact that seventh the whole notion that a rape was involved at all in this crime was that on feb twenty seventh when the officers asked brendon did he try to have sex with her or anything and she said no it's very important we had heard that he might have told you that the notion that women had participated in burning the body also on feb twenty seventh brendon i'm going to ask you a difficult question ok did you help him put that body in the fire if you did it's ok seeing body parts in the fire this is a telling moment on february twenty seventh when the officers tell him when i find it very hard to believe that you didn't see something in that fire a hand a foot ahead something in that fire and then he repeats back the same body part fingers toes and a forehead that he saw in the fire the smell was fed to him on march first we talked monday night about bad smells and stuff do you remember any smells coming from that inside avery's trailer be honest you went inside didn't you hardbacks words even though her words during the supposed that rape were fed to print and assay was she saying anything while you were doing this did she ask you not to do this to her and brandon says she told me not to do it tying teresa halbach up you had to tie her up though didn't you brendan because he couldn't tie her up alone there's no way confession was fed to him even if something even if it's only a few that would be worth attending to court might think there were moments when the investigators after steering brandon down a path allowed him to our first story without fact meeting and that moment you can see him drawing on various sources for these details asking what he drew on was details that had been circulated in the media for example her blood being found in the back of the rav four that's the detail that he knows was the case and that explains his initial story that he had seen her in the back of the raf or he also draws on the book because the girls at times a book that includes hair cutting of a rape victim that's what that part of that was given repeatedly over time demonstrate that his limitations are primarily with respect to oral communication verbal communication of he can read and comprehend at a much higher level this was a consistent result over time and as for his exposure to the media reports there was testimony at post conviction from brennan's mother barb that the family family regularly had the t v yacht and of course the story that was being told on the newest was a story of their relative steven avery's arrest the family was closely following this and why wouldn't that not only did it implicate their family member but it implicated their home and their livelihood that's where he got some of these additional pieces of information from the state court views i'm sorry the state of wisconsin views this confession as corroborated but in fact the corroboration on which it hangs its hat was a product also of the fact feeding that occurred during this interrogation they point to the bullet found in the garage but it was the interrogators themselves who took brandon dessie into that garage originally he had the shooting occurring outside the garage near the bonfire pit and it is them to say brendan we need to get the accuracy about the garage why did they think it happened in the garage because they had previously found shell casings in that garage and the motive of the police was to get a second kill  motive i am not your honor in fact the district court here in granting relief pointed out that the police may well have simply failed to appreciate the way in which their words landed on brendan dancy and that may well be the case in this case but it does not preclude relief in fact it's still both there is relief under the principles of no immediate attention to vick two killers no iran and they needed the truth but the problem with this interrogation is that the way in which they press or pressured and pursued went and bassy was in direct contravention of the seeking of the truth that's the problem here they may have failed to appreciate it at the time but that is not the relevant well your honor i believe that mechanised does not by relief in this case for two reasons first of all the nature of the conflict exhibited by mr kaczynski can well be understood as a concurrent representation conflict similar to the one that play in two it doesn't involve co defendants but it involves something more egregious working for the state at the same time as working for one's client but under the two we know that the court need not identify clearly and how much of anything did the investigators know about his intellectual or emotional limitations well your honor they had a couple of tips on feb twenty seventh of course they didn't have access to his fourth ecological worth but they didn't know on february twenty seventh that this was a sixteen year old tenth grader who couldn't spell the word agent who couldn't spell the word detective and on march first this was further confirmed when he couldn't spell crack or  garage for them these were cues that something was going on here they also have cues on march first did they gave them at least some reason to suspect that there might be limitations here and an additional reason to take special care in the questioning of brennan dancy they still had a great deal of freedom in the questioning of brandon dancy but they should not have said things that would have landed what else besides a misspelling they knew that he was sixteen years old your honor and in the tenth grade they picked him up twice from his school and had prepared had previous interactions with the school counselor at which they could well have asked its records extensive i e pews and other special educational records but they had enough information to know that he was limited and especially on march first they should have known when they asked brenda dessie to produce the one piece of nonpublic information about this crime but only that the two perpetrator should have known that she was shot in the head and he responded by guessing with all these various different theories about how the murder happened trying to inculpate himself in a monitor but not knowing how to describe the murder he supposedly committed so they knew it was a cell where they knew he was sixteen did they ask him about only  might be receiving you know the record does not reflect them asking what might have been a very simple question are you were regulars are you in regular classes or special educational classes in the end the answer would have been there were a lot of regular classes  that right there is a supplemental filing after the argument last time because i had incorrectly asked judge answered judge williams questions about whether there were an i e p m s case i had said no and then realize after the fact that i was wrong there in fact are three p's in the state court record which is what that supplemental filing was directed towards so is it your position that the misspellings that that should have prompted them to ask if he was getting any special education services that certainly could have been one thing that they did for tactics for people with limitations mean you and i can sit here and say well of course you know people with higher functioning are better able to deal with the abstract people with lesser functioning or you know maybe a child you need to be more concrete but we know that the police had any idea what they were supposed to be doing if they had known the things that you're talking about well your honor i have the record doesn't speak to the type of training that these officers receive is the record is whether that's relevant at all because if the alternate question under the supreme court's precedent is whether the confession is voluntary that's true brandon's point of view it's not from the police officers point of view i think that's exactly right you know one of the test directs us to look at the tactics used and weigh them against the individual suspects characterised accident perfect if you had evidence to show that the the person who was being interrogated gave an involuntary concession that would be enough to  well i think that's that's right subject to colorado versus connelly's requiring a police colors and i think that's i think that's correct your honor so coercion voluntariness are somewhat different conce vulnerabilities if this court does not measure the word said to brendan by clinton's ability to withstand than miller vs fent and has no meaning when it tells us that the voluntariness inquiry applies equally to cases in which the tactics are coercive only as applied to the unique characteristics of the particular suspect and the completely subjective test that you say in your answer to the said that it is quite feasible for state courts to take into account a child's age without doing damage to the nature of the custody analysis without doing damage to the objective nature of that analysis we also know that this court investigators specifically we can't make any promises very early on the miranda warnings warned assy anything you say can be used against you that statement that we were talking about earlier so you're you agree that they could have said we're not making any promises and then they could have turned around with eyes minutes later and made a promise of course they could have right so the question is did they not could it have happened if they didn't because that statement the theme that he needed to get it off his chest that the only way that he was going to be free of the images in his mind of the video in his head to use that language which they have assumed result they they assume that this video in his mind is there they assume that he knows all of these things and i guess i'm not really at rest about what he actually knows that they don't tell and brandon we already know all of this how about the gun how about that this how about that  the point is that they made very clear that they couldn't make any promises and that the point trying to make it in the am was just really invoking a theme which was you should get these things out of your mind you should get them off of your chest they said that got the district court the district court magistrate judge and you've got the panel in this case so i don't know that this plan duck and one look at the language it was use one i mean in terms of saying their fathers they say were i and other things that they say suggesting that all he has to do is tell them and then everything will be all right in all of the filings and all the opinions you will not find a single case not want not from the supreme court not from a federal court not from a state court not and they not all of you not an a b s reviewed or not by one case finding a confessor confession involuntary and circumstances similar to this all of the cases that we have that are even remotely be true but the question is that recipient they were trying to figure out when they know that this is a sixteen year old at a minimum whether saying those things you know if i were to say things to my four year old grandson you know he's not going to understand it the way you would or at least i hope that maybe you've moved a bit beyond my wonderful grandson william but you know you say things to an adult that are not the same as you would say things to a younger person absolutely and so the fact that there may be cases where adult defendants have heard things through these exact same words doesn't tell you whether saying them to a child is coerced absolutely but the two closest room for the rest of your life you're being so annoying today and you know maybe the kid thinks you're really going to send him to his room for the rest of his life the two closest cases we have are fairly michael c and atherley fair involved a sixteen year old the officer said things that are nearly identical to what the investigator said here and the supreme court held that they were far from threatening or courses in atherley have a fifteen year old s ely they would look at each case the supreme court never said we're making this ruling for all time we need to look at exactly what we said in each case and exactly truthful absolutely that's right it's a fatality test right but doesn't rule out limitations of the individual but totality tests are broad they're open ended and so there's more room for disagreement the court this court and the supreme court have consistently said that for broad open ended tasks state courts have even more leeway so you don't need a case that's exactly on point sure but you need one that's very close it has to be clear beyond reasonable dispute that no find it fair minded jurist could disagree the supreme court's use a lot of different words to express this concept to say it's got to be very close all right i see your yellow and now your red piece of paper so if you'd like to wrap up in one sentence the whole point of that is to prevent the second guessing of juries and state courts a decade later the district court and the panel majority did exactly that please reverse all right thank you thank you as well to counsel