thank you judge logan and i just wanted to act with this is my st of a remote appearance in front of it in court and i'm so happy that it wasn't me i was expecting it to be made with the technical glitches may it please the court my name is david beings and i here with the to be conducted under the end of terrorism an effective death penalty act it did this in three ways it ignored the limited review that it was so that should have been conducted were guarding the equivocal request made by mr mr fish as a stablished by the record in requesting his right to wait alex hohl and to represent himself it also did so by norrington that there was evidence in the record supporting that the state of public or found very important which was on the initial occasion that mr finch was request to represent himself was to night there was a question of his competence to do so going team it began with a simple request about whether the fin at witnesses for trial his counsel were quiet that mr finch did not which point mr finch without asking permission interrupted call the struck violation and the appellate pain would simply suggest that that point as noted in the record mr finch is an ability to answer questions simple direct questions lead the tr factual finding the request was equivocal is that you disagree with that i don't disagree that there was no finding however there was no duty on the part of the trial court and it guiding supreme court precedent for just did correctly require the federal process and brought up just that there was an unreasonable determination of facts based on the record the district court's decision was limited to two thousand and fifty four did to whether there was an ear on the reasonable all of the state court decisions that's true and there hasn't been although the supreme court has mentioned in cases that it was going to clear up any issue between the and in this case i would suggest suggest a twenty dollars to fifty four dollars limits limits the district courts review regardless of what the standard on direct appeal would be under the unequivocal findings of course  fennis did request to represent himself but you have to look at the context of the entire record here and it's clear from the beginning that his primary goal was to obstruct or gorillas trial in any way possible he knew what was coming that included replacing his appointed counsel with counsel as the trial for what it would put on a show would file frivolous pro se motions and adopt them as his appointed counsel would have refused to do back in immediately interrupted and said new counsel that hearing began with him clearly signaling to the court that he wanted a new counsel and ended with a request for standby counsel now while stand by alex that that's not answer if we look at the what the with the trial court had to say about its decision at one point trial or simply says your request to self represent yourself is going to be denied based on the seriousness of the offenses and the likelihood of you getting some serious time the court's going to do deny the request which doesn't seem like anybody said they had think you're obstructive behaviors in the way and so you don't want others evidence that there's that this is a difficult client there is that there is evidence that this is a client who's at odds with his lawyer where did the trial court ever say that that the obstruction is problem was the primary problem it seems to me that that was that's just of determined by the arkansas supreme court rather than by the trial court itself well that's correct in the state with i'm sorry paula pain would suggest there is nothing wrong with that again we're looking at the last reason a decision which was the arkansas supreme court and it's very soon going to spill over into it in the review you're on and you're correct that the truck work didn't make an express ruling about obstructions pondok however that can be found in the record immediately prior to the ruling you just indicated when there was questioning in the colloquy there for a while week about mr benches ability to understand and operate according to the rules the prosecutors expressed some doubt about that at that point is when before there was any ruling on the forever wes that's the point that that mr finch requested standby counsel that's the point at which the trial court said you've got counsel clearly indicating  that he was the trucker we're still reading that it's a motion to substitute or change balance hold and said that you just you don't reason you're at you're not asking for counsel grasping for someone to put on a show for you and i'm not going to do that so while that wasn't  exposition of the issues where the arkansas supreme court phrase that and only the only question of on the unequivocal issue that i don't think that close question  fact are was and there's facts in the record and arkansas supreme court made a determination that the facts and the record full we supported a determination and you're saying that that was an unreasonable factual determination it's not simply enough to say you know they i mean the dissent says they invented the facts of whole cloth and i guess that's what the dissent says but the question is were there in fact facts in the record that w at the conclusion that their reason was for been in the record you know on and the question is is is d that what the what it's not so much what the district court did at that point is what are we going to do when we look at the same then a long period of time went by and then beginning in october of two thousand and fifteen at the hearing at that at that very well hearing he asked clearly d and unequivocally asked to represent himself four different times  d were uttered in that hearing it didn't fit in with the whole dialogue at all i don't know where where those two words came from i wouldn't say that it was it was certainly not painting as mine but was for the court to decide is request to represent himself that's just the way everybody understood it and that's how the ninety nine percent at hearing dealt with that with for that on behalf of the state that that that shows that there was greater equivocation than what than what mr french believes there is at least this point and is such a request inconsistent in key in this case are himself or tried to make a big deal out of the fact that he st asked for new counsel but once they started asking to represent himself he never never walk that back at all you know there seems to be an interest in how the case is prosecuted can be determined or decided to be an attempt to obstruct or delay rather than a difference of opinion on the theory of the case that ought to be present right and i would just like you to address that particular question in particular the fact is that you know i was a trial judge for an awful long time usually d the obstruction piece comes float down after you've said you could represent yourself and the guy  starts behaving in a way that demonstrates beyond all question that really is goal here is to completely disrupt the proceedings turn him into a circus and that and create problems and you know and and and i'm a little concerned about the timing of this decision it's made before you know he has not truly represent himself and and to actually get in trouble with the obstruction i'm just curious what your thoughts are but you're concerned about the timing of the decision not to not allow him to represent himself right and then the arkansas supreme court making a determination that the factual record supports finding of obstruction right and so if that's a reasonable finding my question is what's the timing that one needs to be obstructive i mean sometimes guys are completely obstructive all the way along i years ago there was lay down on the floor and just refused to move but i wanted to represent himself it seemed to be sort of not not a good way to go and it wasn't my cases or the other colleagues in my case it was a state judge but but but i get where you could say we don't got to wait till you're actually representing yourself to realize you're probably right but in this particular case there seems to be mostly a difference of opinion on how the case of proceed and what the theories of the fence ought to be and those theories may be o and then look at what this arkansas supreme court said was the basis for that decision and reconcile it all because they did see the kind of obstruction that in that record but whether or not that was an unreasonable finding that's ultimately the issue earlier as i understood it that this really is a case a case involving determination of facts because we know what the facts are everybody knows what the facts are the historical facts of who said what we and what was filed and what the ruling of the trial court d was so if we look at it as a de one case you know reasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the supreme court d of the united states is it only for red or whatever what other supreme court cases supreme court law would  one thing i want to know is this may may or may not be and issue with the court but  no no mental health issues whatsoever not only that but he is fully able to decide for him that it's not a good idea for him to cooperate with  been made so the d lot that for the supreme court to rely on that saying that there's been there been d no valuation and no no determination made is just just not only unreasonable no supreme court decision about exactly what obstructionist conduct is that forever it's interesting was it case about pretrial conduct it didn't concern the trial note the that there is no guidance on that the district court of course pulled out some extreme examples but you don't have to set the courthouse on fire and curse the bailiff in order to you seem to manipulate sub the trial process in here the record is replete with that and we cite some examples in our brief from this court's precedents now those were direct appeals not hey just cases but and i don't know and mostly where there was conduct closer to what we see here there were continuance as of the last minute trying to delay the trial and other things of that sort here we know for example that mr finch in his initial act three had reviewed even though of mental disease or defect bence he refused to cooperate with that and then and november that hearing that mr lambert mentioned the hearing where there was a substitute judge two days before the november trial he came into court for trial and again derailed the trial by asserting the mental disease or defect defense promised the court on the record that he cooperated with the time of the trial or continued the trial for him to assert that defense and then possible and that it's not a static determination the burden is on the trial for given the circumstances of the totten to make that determination and the court can read the colloquy it's been set out in several places but it's obvious that mr bench was unable to comport himself during that hearing to the point that the trial judge had reason to question this poppins and then mr finch saying that if you're going wasn't going to sway whether intentionally