[brief] Fourth, [...] found that this defendant, who was 16 years and 4 months old at the time of his confession, was capable of, and did in fact, knowingly and intelligently waive his Miranda rights and provide a statement to police.  The court noted that many of the facts defendant had relied upon before it to establish the contrary – e.g., defendant did not have a learner’s permit, did not have a girlfriend, was reclusive, and slept in the same bed as his parents – did not a fortiori mean defendant could not knowingly and intelligently understand and waive his Miranda rights.  The court noted that reclusiveness did not mean the defendant was incapable of speaking to police and that while defendant did not have a girlfriend, his joking response to that question established that he had an awareness of sexual acts.  The judge also found that many of these facts were subject to several possible meanings and/or causes.  Without evidence as to what meaning should be gleaned from these facts, the court refused to speculate that any of these facts evidenced a lack of intelligence or knowledge.  The judge found the video recording of the confession presented a defendant who acted in an age appropriate manner and was fully capable of making decision, with the assistance of his older brother.  While the court accepted representations that defendant attended a “special” school, the court noted the record before it was devoid of any testimony establishing that defendant’s attendance at that school evidenced a disability or that defendant had any disability that rose to a level that would allow it to say that defendant did not have the ability to knowingly and intelligently waive Miranda.  Moreover, what was before the court demonstrated the contrary, particularly defendant’s discussions with the detectives regarding his schooling, course work, job, and social interests.  The court found that rather than support a lack of education or low intelligence, defendant’s college aspirations, his reported good grades, his employment at his school, and his discussion of “The Shining,” all proved, in the totality of the circumstances, that defendant had the ability to understand and voluntarily waive Miranda.  The judge found that the interrogation lasted one hour and 13 minutes – from 2:05 a.m. until 3:18 a.m. – and, therefore, was no prolonged such that it could be said that defendant was subjected to physical or mental exhaustion.  The court saw no evidence of exhaustion in the video, noting that while defendant may have been tired, he was not unresponsive or lethargic.  The court noted the defendant was given water and a bathroom break.  The court found defendant to be alert, awake and responsive in his conversation with the detectives and his banter with his brother.  The defendant was seen by the court to lean forward to talk with the detectives and sit back and look to his brother.  To the extent that defendant spoke about hearing voices and seeing things that were not there, the court found these admissions clearly referred to past matters; the court found no evidence that defendant was suffering from any delusions or voices at the time he waived Miranda and provided a statement.  The court ultimately concluded that when the defendant responded yes to the detectives’ questions with regard to his Miranda rights, the defendant was giving a positive indication that he understood the advisements.  [...] rejected defendant’s arguments that he was unaware and simply “yes-ing” the detectives based on the totality of the circumstances.  (2T9-20 to 10-21; 18-8 to 19-8; 20-4 to 22-18; 62-17 to 68-7).