relevance and instead offer fatuous and totally unsupported contentions such as that this court has no jurisdiction over the defendants if the indictment is called a new indictment rather than a superseding one. Unless the defendants raise statute of limitations or Speedy Trial Act objections in their appeals of the Detention Order, however, which they have not, the second indictment is valid whether it is called the “superseding” indictment, the “new” indictment, or the “blue,” “red,” or “purple” indictment. As the Seventh Circuit held, “[wjhatever type of indictment it was, the defendants were arraigned under it on November 19 and 20, 1998,” 168 F.3d 943, 945-46, and the court thus has jurisdiction over the defendants. Cf. United States v. Marzano, 537 F.2d 257, 271 (7th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). 2. New Detention and/or Bond Hearings The
holding that to determine whether a statement was voluntary the court must consider the totality of all the surrounding circumstances  both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation and decide  whether a defendants will was overborne by the circumstances surrounding the giving of a confession holding that a district court should decide a motion for expedited discovery on the entirety of the record to date and the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances unless the circumstances are such that the notaro factors apply holding that a claim not raised before the trial court will not be considered for the first time on appeal holding that once the defendant is before the court the court will not inquire into the circumstances surrounding his presence there holding that the supreme court will not issue advisory opinion on issue not before the court