Attorneys for the Highland Park massacre suspect on Thursday tried to persuade a Lake County judge to bar hours of police interrogation video from the upcoming trial, arguing that investigators withheld critical information that might have prompted their client to stop talking.The lawyers contend that police violated the constitutional rights of Robert Crimo III by not giving him complete details about a lawyer who came to the police station that day to consult with him.Judge Victoria Rossetti said she would issue a written ruling on that motion and another one made by prosecutors. The next court hearing is Dec. 18.Prosecutors are asking Rossetti to allow a former school resource officer who knows Crimo to be allowed to identify him in surveillance videos they plan to show at the trial, which is set for February 2025.Crimo appeared in court in Waukegan Thursday after skipping several hearings. He flashed a peace sign in the direction of prosecutors twice during the hearing, when sheriff's deputies escorted him into and out of the courtroom. Crimo is accused of killing seven people with an assault rifle from a rooftop overlooking Highland Park's July 4 parade in 2022.In the first motion discussed, prosecutors called a Highland Park police officer to the stand to identify Crimo in the videos and pictures from the crime scene. Sgt. Brian Soldano testified that he was a school resource officer and encountered Crimo several times when the defendant attended Edgewood Middle School and Highland Park High School. He identified Crimo in surveillance video, played in court, that allegedly showed the suspect running to and from an alley near the crime scene on July 4, 2022.The other motion, brought by Crimo's attorneys, seeks to bar around six hours of police interrogation of Crimo, recorded on video, after the attorneys claimed authorities violated his constitutional rights by denying him access to an attorney.In a motion filed in October, Crimo's lawyers contended that a family-hired lawyer showed up at the Highland Park police station during the interrogation of Crimo the evening after the shooting. The motion claims the attorney showed up around 8:30 p.m. and asked to speak to Crimo, nearly an hour and a half after the interview began at 7:05 p.m. Police did alert Crimo that a lawyer was in the lobby, but Assistant Public Defender Gregory Ticsay argued that they did not specify that the lawyer had been retained by Crimo's family and came with the intention of consulting with the suspect.Crimo continued to speak with police for hours after they alerted him about the presence of an attorney, according to video of the interrogation played in court. Prosecutors showed video clips of the interrogation showing Crimo signing two Miranda waivers, which explain his right to remain silent and talk to an attorney. At one point during the interrogation, Crimo says, "I like heard it a million times," when the detective reads him the Miranda rights.But Ticsay also argued that authorities violated Crimo's rights by preventing the attorney who arrived that night from entering the interrogation room on his own. Ticsay cited an Illinois court case that he said afforded defendants more rights than those explicitly detailed in the U.S. Constitution."When his retained attorney was not given access to him during his custodial interrogation ... they violated his due process rights, period. That's a constitutional violation. ... The rest of his interview should be suppressed," Ticsay said. Around six hours of interrogation happened after this alleged violation happened at 8:30 p.m.But Assistant State's Attorney Jeffrey Facklam said police told Crimo everything he needed to know to make a decision about talking to an attorney."I would say the question is, 'Has he been advised that there was an available attorney?' " Facklam said. "He knew he could talk to a lawyer in that moment, and he chose not to."Facklam also pushed back on the defense's position that the family attorney should have been allowed to visit Crimo without Crimo calling him in."The Illinois constitution should not require police to put an attorney in an interview room with a defendant who knowingly refuses to see an attorney," Facklam said. "It is not a right that can be invoked by a third party, not even a lawyer. That right is with the defendant."