testimony of mr outlook and it's clear that the district court has a discretion weigh the credibility of witnesses testifying before to make judgments as a credibility and it certainly with the district court's destruction to find mr officer wise it's testimony credible however that's not enough to solve the issue of whether mr allen had requested to speak to law enforcement generally or speak to officer weiss specifically the statement that the district court is relying on therefore to conclude that mr outland made that request you're relying on an out of court on sworn statement by a person who's never actually was never even identified by name in the record for the district court so where is the if there's a credibility contest between two people who are actually testifying before court under oath certainly the court is well within its rights the disregard to make credibility assessments of value the testimony of one witness or the other  this case i'm can i ask you a question on that or an action or detective weiss in the paperwork in the police paperwork says that he responded to st john's hospital to speak to your client one of the things that you don't that you don't hear on the tape and i realize that the tape started when the interview is you don't hear anything suggesting that your client didn't you know wish to speak to the police for for whatever reason and the tape of course is something that the district court had another i guess what i'm asking is in a situation like this where he says alive i don't want to talk to the police and the police say somebody called me and told me to go to the hospital i mean what what else is a district court supposed to do other than take testimony look at look at what's on the tape listen to what's on the tape and then make a finding  recognize that as a potentially significant issues it is the government's burden to prove that the waiver or end is voluntary is certainly what within the government's ability to one i into five the eat this who says that mr outland request it is the law enforcement so that he can be questioned in court is subject to cross examination the person who says he had this conversation has never been identified he's given no sworn testimony we don't know the details of the substance of whatever conversation there during the call and whether do you recall whether detective weiss at the hearing testified he received a call to go to the hospital the record does show that mr that officer weiss says he was informed that mr outlet wish to speak so we're not however competent to testify as to whether that underlying conversation took place what was said in it and whether it's a proper conclusion based on the substance of that conversation for whoever had it t general or quest to speak to law enforcement again there's no record of that conversation we don't know what led that officer to clue that mr allen wanted to speak to law enforcement and absent that and moreover we don't know when that conversation take place there's evidence in the record indicating the improvement of mr outlands condition in response to the occasion we don't know whether these conversations  as to whether i'm mr outland requested to speak with a law enforcement officer i would say st that of course the district court found in fact he did that's a factual finding that this court gives deference to secondly whether mr outmanned requested to speak with someone or not is really of questionable significance as to the voluntariness for example if if a law enforcement officer had approached him even if you hadn't requests to speak with one and explained that the law enforcement officer would like to speak with with mr out went on and explain them well there's nothing coercive about that you know intercourse that's the touchstone for the voluntary in this question is this coercion so although the district court was correct to credit detective white's testimony and rely on the record resulting interview would not be per se coerced and therefore involuntary and a further delve a little bit deeper into the record as to as to detective  testimony how he was requested to come to the hospital and speak with mr allen that testimony that he learned mr allen like to speak with an officer came on direct examination from the in fact the defendant conceded at the suppression hearing that the detective didn't use any kind of threats or intimidation and listening to the recording of the statement we can see the kind of circumstances that the interview took place there's it's just a conversational tone throughout the interview mr outland never seems to express any kind of fear so so this report was was correct to find here that this was a voluntary statement it's supported by the totality of circumstances on the record and all the although the defense doesn't address here in the waiver question i would like to just briefly allen to the extent that it's the defense relies on any medication that the defendant receives in arguing that he was intoxicated well that's the sort of faulty promise the record intoxication instead they're designed to reverse the effects of his or her career i mean let me ask you a question on this this part of the argument is in preparing for this morning it's far from clear to me what we're reviewing here and the reason i say that is because i i don't see anywhere where the district court actually made a finding that the miranda waiver was knowing and intelligent can you can you point me to where in the district court's opinion that finding was made no no no i can't and that's because you're correct  does not explicitly address whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent so that's exactly why i have is and you ought you do a fine job of it in your in your brief of marshalling you know what's clear from the tape that cetera et cetera but in a circumstance like this have you have you come upon any decision of our court where we undertake that finding in the st instance or alternatively where we've held that the lack of an express finding is effectively harmless have we ever done either of those two things in your knowledge no your honor not in the cases that i recall but i would say however that the court can affirm the district court here and that's for primarily for the reason that of course the government can argue for the affirming ths of a district court order based on any legal conclusion supported by the record and here the district court i think it's fair to say didn't make factual findings that support that legal conclusion in the district court's order the st few pages  what worries me is the law coming to include a lack of discipline if you will around the factual findings that are requisite on a miranda waiver a miranda waiver has a very serious consequence involuntary is fine for a gentleman like mr allen here very serious and we don't we don't have an express finding by the district court now maybe henri mand it happens very quickly if that's what we choose to do for a lot of the reasons that we argue but i'd like you to address whether you think you know the law should move in the direction that you're urging us with respect to either ourselves making these kind of factual findings what's will often turn upon credibility assessments or or otherwise somehow engaging in a in a form of harmless error review that i'm so i'm i'm certainly true that perhaps the district court could have been more explicit and in addressing these facts to some extent it's it's it's lack of explicitly addressing this is understandable and that  the defendant's filings and in fact even the government's filing sort of conflate these questions as to the voluntariness that's the problem that's precisely the problem the miranda waiver and the voluntariness issues are distinct yes or yes or that of course they are but but the district court did make factual findings which this court could rely on it wouldn't have to find facts in the st instance and those facts would support the conclusion that the defendant was aware of his rights and that's especially true given the fact that the recording just as perhaps the most important piece of evidence is on the record was for the district court  that was clear and of course that's not was the focus of the district court proceedings but on the next page on page two when he briefly explained his argument he also addressed the waiver and i see i'm out of time if i could have a few he so he addressed in his brief both both issues very briefly and in a sentence or two and then i think it's fair to say that the thrust of the argument had the suppression hearing was also the voluntary whether he was under some kind of coercive pressure to give the state so i think that's why it's reasonable that the district court focused on one over the other i see have run out of time rely on same facts primarily the level of intoxication of mr outland but also as he testified he felt intimidated and pressured by the fact that the officer showed up with out having requested to speak to the officer and that brings us back to the issue of whether the district court apply the proper standard disregards testimony when on the basis of the statement of a party who wasn't before a court wasn't sworn in not identified the contents of the conversation were not a part of record so for those reasons really argue that the just or court erred it should be