we contend that the california court of appeals application of michigan versus mostly to his case and reasonable as a matter of law or a fact well i think it's a matter of both you we know most of the a miranda there is no supreme court case and we know from supreme court that you don't need the identical set of facts is a supreme court case which is mostly in this sort of circumstance the miranda yourself and i'm mostly a but we have to look at the circumstances to days he was in prison the whole time in jail the whole time he had no contact with the outside world none whatsoever he made one phone call to the victim's mother who is his step mom and i was it he had no other contact so he's sitting there and he's already and out he's already in an adversarial situation your honor he's already said that i don't want to talk about this crime then we come back in there two days later we know from the very mouth of the officer who interrogated him one of the detectives says i went in there because i wanted to question about the crime as clear as the day she said that in their shoes and i went in there to question about the crime and that's exactly that's precisely what they did but initially they're clever and that's why the supreme court has said that you know we know from case law and common sense when police officers go in there and they start chatting with someone they're not they're not interested in getting to know incriminating statement that your client made he may well well now about his age if we if we take it to nikolay speaking your honor he get talk about his age he get talk about his opportunities to be alone let's just say let's just if you are to suggest and we take it just the thirty minute and look to see if there were any incriminating statements under a very strict definition of this incriminating then i would say  which was the element of the most serious crimes charge against them that you never self your honor would have been incriminating and the fact that he says when he moved into the house because the central question you know on the day very question at  the heart of the trial was whether or not he had committed the the life term which would have been i hate to mention it but the idea is the when they go in there and they find out when he had moved in when he had moved in back to the house that in of itself he thought it is incriminating because that would have stablish when he went age opportunity now to talk about the groom's case well i tell you this the groom's case i can't tell you i know the facts inside out but what i do know that he stands for the proposition in a footnote where they talk about where the that in a footnote saying that in of itself was not an issue so much so because they didn't mirandize him prior to any question here they didn't do that here your honor and the fact that the california court of appeal is saying that they did it we all know that we all know that what they did to this guy is they get him in there they start talking about his background his sports activities a soften and soften him up this is precisely why the u supreme court has come down and said you don't do this is exactly the type of situation that we don't want detectives to be doing to suspects because there is no fifth amendment right otherwise how could anybody you want to  attorney general taylor when appearing for response to the this case is reviewed under and under the california court of appeal here reasonably applied mostly and the factors laid out in mostly in determining that the petitioners right to remain silent was fully respected here must be lays out four factors and of those four factors we are in the  pondents favor the only difference between moslehi and this case is that the suspect was questioned about the same right and as judge owen pointed out this court has determined in  just the were the outset of interrogation so in this case the issue becomes whether the suspect was subject to interrogation when he was questioned about his biographical information and that detectives actually made it very clear when they first came it is true that they came that detective to speak testified at trial that she came to talk to him about the crime however when they walked into the room they said we have a form to fill out this form does not have to do anything with the case and it only has to do with your background they proceed to ask him about his name age i trust the only time the victim came up here was when they asked who do you live with and he says i live with my step mother and four sisters including the victim and the only other can use the collection of biographical information as a pretext to getting incriminating evidence however there is no such evidence here the detectives limited their questions to his  background they are questions and context never referred to or related to the crimes here they never followed up on any questions he asked that were generally related to the victim interrogation is is set out by rhode island v and s which focuses on the suspects protected perspective and from the petitioners perspective here he was sworn that they are not talking about the likely to elicit incriminate incriminating statements and the officers here or the detectives here did nothing or said i think that would likely elicit an incriminating statement made no incriminating statement before he was mirandized and so to answer here that was a very long answer but to answer your question on point there was no interrogation prior to miranda and the petitioner here was given a fresh set of miranda warnings before interrogation meeting this court and mostly requirement that that be given so was there anything incriminating that was solicited prior to the miranda warnings i think counsel for the petitioner indicated well first he said his name but then he said his age his age is not in itself incriminating that that facts would  that he said that he was eighteen was not incriminating itself beyond that statement there was nothing else that the petitioner says that was incriminating but he never said that he was alone with the put to the victim the fact that he lives with the victim is not an element of the crime and has access to the victim well living with her gave her an absence he didn't have to live with her to have abscess he was her half brother so in visiting her he would have access to her in baby sitting her he would have access to her so the fact that he lived with her and say that he lived with her was not in itself incriminating detectives questioned the suspect about the same crime and in both cases that has it that this court determined that not to be a monthly or miranda violation  one that case is closely related to this case because it it involves both the same subject matter as well as a belated miranda warning and in that case the court found that both  i mean the cases that you're you're saying that there was no unreasonable application of to the facts or to the law and the relevant law was mostly or mostly and then if you look at the thirty minutes or whatever let it be that case clearly show that the detective made a conscious decision to withhold miranda in order to get a community incriminating and statement and then administer and miranda warnings and then gets the same including statement we don't have those those it's the same situation here in all staff at the court the supreme court says sudden unworn statement does not taint a post morning confession if the unborn statement was not it was not up to you through coercion or improper tactic what would be your harmless they would still be harmless yonder even without the confession here we have the testimony of the victim we have his confession the petitioner's confession to his mother that he did this to his sister  the victim tell told her her son her teacher the sexual assault examination nurse that of the of the about the assault as well as the investigating officers and so her her testimony at trial was scrubber rated by all of the other is there any physical evidence there was not your honor ok and so even without this confession there was still compelling evidence of his