easy client to represent the nature of the fact of his offense since attorney defenses made it difficult for everyone involved and the record shows a man who was brash distrustful demanding possibly bordering paranoid possibly have been most suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and he could probably be described as a survivalist and having that mentality the motions he felt pro se reflected in the language th he was entitled to have a representative of the state who may be allowed to strike hard blows but who nevertheless were being fair in the prosecution of this case he was entitled to representation of counsel that would be reasonable make the court room in fact it was not and that there is plenty of evidence in the record to show that it was not a voluntary leaving of the courtroom it was not a refusal on his part to be in the courtroom we have to get him dressed for court all the time he was hollering in pain several times throughout the videos you can see on his lower right after a minute there was a huge hernia extending you could see it clear as to apparently vomit prior to coming into court there was on the floor of his jail cell some liquid of some type by his mouth when they found him in his jail cell laying on the floor of the self his pants were partly down by his thighs we don't know what that stated he was attempting to throw up a trash can and there was nothing she said that he she said something about the trash can and spit being in the in the trash can yes but she also said that she examined him  and there was a tenderness in the lower right after him and in this video this that we have we go see that what we have is her saying to him you're having a panic attack which is totally different from what she told judge crater judge crater could have taken just a couple of minutes to say let's look at this what's even worse is that the defense attorneys didn't even ask to talk to their client they didn't ask judge crater for ten minutes to go over to her more passionate method of dealing with this situation was to come to the conclusion that he was faking and tell him to shut up to be quiet to do not tell her what was happening he didn't she didn't even allow her chance to say i have th wilson who was the neighbor would was testifying about the lighting in the area at the time of the shooting in closing arguments defense attorney said that mr peters wasn't sure who it was who was standing outside his house he could easily sure in the picture you can see some of the pictures that he was wearing flak jackets on the wall the pictures in the wall he knew about that kind of material he could have again turned to his attorney and said ask this question how could this have happened asked him he was not there to do that and the reason he was not there was because judge crater ousted him from the courtroom he didn't there's two sides it clearly there has to be an obligation for failure to exist there is no obligation there is no failure he made those the conscious choice that he was not going to testify and that's what the question should be  situation it's not unusual the bullet had to ricochet go over creation before it hit her if there was enough momentum and this is physics and science and i don't do that but i think it's physics if there's enough momentum of her running that the spatter the language you judges should use to tell the jury what the law is has changed yes not the underlying lotsof that's always been the same but the language of informing the to make please the court i would like to start out with an issue which we didn't which constant did not address just for a moment because i have a mistake in my brief but i want to clarify and that is in the closing argument one of used that wording and said you know what i feel but he continued so it needs to be taken in context and that's their argument in the brief he continued he said but now it's your turn you judge the credibility of the witnesses you to death your job th role so he was actually underscoring exactly what the judge had just said to him he it's taken out of context to say that he was you know personally vouch in some way or something in the context in which it was said it is clear he was saying just the opposite  many of the trial sometimes you step a little bit over the line and in this case this prosecutor is really taking this case seriously as he should but when he said john wayne defendant that's part of the sentence and much you say is that he came here to do a well being check that is a community service a public service to all of us and we all know that those are services that are police officers routinely that you know been you've gone through these statements and individually talked about each one vote but a closing argument ultimately has to be judged if you will on its totality right and so when you look at the myriad of statements by the prosecution they that's not a comment that new you know that should be made and you know in the closing argument however in the context here with all of the evidence that there is overwhelming evidence we feel that there is certainly it's not you're in it for the very reason i just stated which is i think that given that you know this is that these comments were for the most current directly related to the evidence i don't believe there is ineffective assistance of juries you know to the case right exactly prejudiced the point where the integrity of the judicial proceedings is different where the trial cannot go on and certainly in this case that's where they were at that point the defendant loses his right to be present and some of the facts and that can be reviewed by anonymous we've reviewed that certainly part of the evidence but that's not all the evidence what we have here is we have the trial judge trying to make a good determination calling the nurse asking first off there was if there were any other people that had been involved in this and have seen that affected they apparently were off shift then saying to the nurse you know tell me what your opinion is what you've done about it asking all sorts of questions and the stated in a brief coralie there asymptomatic normally any person with a hernia does not have that type of pain that would cause him to cramp now that doesn't mean that the court stopped and said well honey is a hernia that core engaged in a long questioning and listen carefully to the nurse to k about the exam about what she had found about what her opinion as to whether or not had some kind of medical condition that did something further if the answer to that place you know now this nurse sees the defendant later and it's on the tape at that point he's again causing in our personalities with the officers who are trying to take him to change into clothing for that to come to the hearing was nothing really wrong with him that would keep him from participating more often than not he was complaining of nominating and she said that is what might be causing you know more tenderness more and more pain if you will if the area he is in court he is not merely trying to speak up to the judge he has said he is yelling over her he is slumped will not dress and the question is of course busy or are willing  prior motion by the state to keep the defendant from coming in in a wheelchair and during that testimony by the doctor who had observed him that doctor said that there was no reason he couldn't that he just didn't want to no reason to believe that he was going to change the way he is acting i mean even after the court was interrupted three times and trying to make a simple statement that the way your acting we can't go on in this will be taken as a waiver she she couldn't instructed right before their deliberations of course by the coroner cannot and that was that they could not consider the defendant's decision not to testify cannot be considered in reaching a verdict so he had they were told this we there is the delis column and the telling the jurors after it hit it minutely this was in response to an argument by defense counsel but telling the jurors that they really didn't have to comb the record they didn't have to really look at the evidence just th obligation that's their job and that's what they're there for and if the prosecution is going to submit two hundred so much pieces of evidence then they need to carefully look at all of that evidence so yes the prosecutor did step over the line an argument for issue four and under either you know for a piece of discretion we're saying that he didn't refuse to participate and that's what this comes down to he didn't do it i mean his refusal to participate i in after the lunch break and said nurse mckay pushed the hernia back and now i know that you have a hernia and i don't necessarily know what that means but to me that sounds days that something had to be pushed in and that it works causing pain if witnesses were testifying he was missing out on the eight witnesses testified if they had taken a half hour and its nurse mccain looked at it and pushed the marina back in the morning during that hour then they could have continued he could have been control his pain as difficult as mr peters is i admit there might be farfetched i missed that but he couldn't control his pain and he could have reasonably participated in his trial and not missed out on those eight witnesses to  yes but it also will be misstatement of the law for him that question relates also to the closing arguments with the prosecutor saying he's a lying liar for you know all that stuff i