from the district judge issued a detailed and persuasive opinion suppressing confessions basically did two parts it can be broken down into one part was what led to the defendant  the surrendering and and giving statements and the other part was whether or not the police officers dictated the statements that were signed the suppression was based on some of the most important factors mr police was only eighteen he had no experience of the criminal justice system his mother had been arrested and as we get into the details apparently unjustifiably arrested was threatened with deportation the younger siblings were also taken out of the home and were threatened to be sent to children's services according the government's own brief although i don't think it needed the magistrate's findings on page seven the government's brief the evidence was that mr felice was crying showing his vulnerability before making one of the statements and on that same page of the government's brief that the statement he gave wasn't at least substantial  mom as much as it's incriminating of himself saying that his mother knew nothing about it which of course supports the notion that the reason he was giving the statement was for fear of what was happening to his mother and his younger siblings  the reasons below there's an objection to the suppression of course confessions in the reasons that were specified were a mis finding about the defendant's address and the two dictated statements having not been dictate at the hearing itself the district judge wouldn't allow the mother to testify about the threats being made as if they were hearsay and this is on the in the appendix on pages one twenty one two one twenty the mother was handing the phone to the officer and actually very explicitly said the district judge said if you want to put this in you have to call subpoena the police the police was it was the officer who was there a prove the intimidation on the mother the mother can testify to what she was being threatened with and what she heard the police officer say to her son on the phone in my practice i see i've seen difficult your seat issues this one wasn't a difficult one or difficult for these were some of the most clear cut hearsay questions these were not hearsay or they could be justified of a number of grounds there is excitement going on there's one effort to salvage it is an excited  challenge of the judge's ruling i don't think the exact words were this is i don't recall it was excited utterance was the only basis for getting it out i i don't recall the words being used by trial counsel as you know this introducing the evidence that so clearly non hearsay would be plainer if you even got the plain area this is a threat is that the children to go to children services it's not being introduced to show that their government will actually the police officer actually bring the children children services offered to share with the whole hearing was about that there was in this case is not like huffs that were in shock and who for the last three cases this is the exact case this court repeatedly distinguishes about what is course confession the seem to actually make a voluntary unless finding it simply says well it's an issue of credibility and therefore it goes to the jury it's an issue of credibility and therefore it goes to the jury and then only later does the judge say oh yes by the way i find that this was voluntary but there is no explanation there is no opinion there is nothing to say why different conclusion is reached and under the constitution it does not go to the jury except as after a see it just seems to me there's been a sort of fundamental sidestepping a basic constitutional requirement x a one of many again your honor because this i think might address the last question to certainly the if it doesn't i mean just recently it does he says i think i believe you know that it was voluntary so so having said that why would there be a jackson here and i guess we'll just have a look at that must be considered it doesn't say he's eighteen but i don't care because here's the link of the interrogation it doesn't have any competing analysis and the district judge what we've got to work fish and finding a voluntariness that's different than saying there's a procedural violation that he didn't make the finding  voluntary well i don't think so because to make the finding of voluntariness you have to consider at least the most important of the non exhaustive factors i don't know how much turns on this but i guess just if you could just identify you say that one of many errors maybe just list what there is one is the magistrate judge you say he didn't follow the findings to he excluded the mother from testifying three basically a part of jackson against danno new york rule that was was a line of cases of all said you don't decide voluntary just by looking at the detail and deciding it's credible even credible confessions are just as unconstitutional just as capable of being found to be involuntary as as doesn't have before which is this is he in the first round or worldly he says this is a credibility issue does not make a jefferson finding then later he proport to comply with jackson in the written order but the indecent with the critical issue of whether these threats were made or not he never directly addresses one way or the other in making that conclusion rob ontarians he says well i had no evidence before me but that's because he excluded the mother so that's kind of an odd argument to make and that is i believe the agents but that doesn't go to the question they never said the threats didn't come in people that executed the so i guess the question is what do we do with the judges i'd say it's voluntary but with knowing detachment with the dispute as to whether they were or weren't and to the extent that there is an engagement he said something that doesn't comply with jackson which is just son sometimes it's perfectly obvious but often we don't review what the articulated reason for the sentence is and to hear the finding in the written order that the confession it is voluntary in the face of considerable evidence raises staff that doesn't talk about a key issue it bad is adequate from the government's point of view we understand that that the judge had taken into consideration the circumstances of the end and he made a determination that taking of it is adequate in the return order and he makes it clear why he decided back and and before the written order would you have said it was clear from the articulated reasons on the record that he had complied with his obligation although we understand that it might be a question if he handed the written order takes care of  problems yes if you just on the point of those sort of the prejudice the life of we disagreed with you about the exclusion of the mother's testimony i'm having a hard time seeing how the written order can be read to say that even if the mother had testified i'm telling you i wouldn't believe or he does not say that in fact he almost says the opposite which is i had no evidence before me of any threat now he says he's entitled to have that view apparently because assume from the but the record shows before that it was yours if he thought he's wrong on that there's just nothing i see in the written order that suggests that if he had to take account of the threats that she was testifying to he was thank you and have the district judge stop there that might not of written the level of an argument for a brief but then the judge said make sure you tell all the friends you made where you're going that they should consider pleading guilty which is just an entirely that evidence i would ask the court to take a look at what the government's eternity has brought up in terms of criticizing the witness there is one but just so i understand what's going on here since the if i understand it right the federal don't govern the suppression hearing at all well judge can apply the addition judge has with his or her right to by general here say principles it happens doesn't always happen doesn't have to do i'm just trying to think about how we how we characterize to apply the hearsay rule which would not be an abuse of discretion by itself but if it is right is the law that you're honest to also cite to the the language that in the fifth amendment context even factual issues take on a legal element when you get t involuntary this and this court like the district judge can perform an arc it archaeologist will dig i think is the phrase to make sure that what the ultimate conclusion is is that we're not running a society with a criminal justice system that convicts people based on forced the i believe the literal cross examination question was was it after four e m or was it five thirty am i read that and i think yes is the answer either way and the judge the response was i didn't have a watch because apparently one time the answer was after for one time it was about five thirty when fed questions find eternity there probably helped bring out the time the time wasn't material on that either and yet the judge actually criticize the mother in the middle of her testimony was in front of a jury be reversed by itself but said you don't wear a watch to answer questions like this that doesn't help the government here just like arresting the mother and calling it something else and threatening to deport her and essent saw this happening in another country we wouldn't think there civilized in their system thank you rhonda what's this question judge her or no question thank you thank you thank you counsel