adversarial system if it pans out there be somebody it fighting for each stock at any given critical moment in a case when is it the walking certainly tolerate an even matches for you know for example profit but vs still prosecutor but it cannot tolerate a situation where there's absolutely no one on one side the state obviously has no interest and really is not supposed to look out for the right and and here is this because the whole soul failure of the adversary system if somebody if there's nobody on one side you just you just don't have an adversary process and that's what our system runs on the  find that they're there nonappearance is will fall so if you the crosstown of doesn't matter if you slept in or if he if he chose not to be there because he's protesting something that that the judge did he's  and stays argument and that is that this willfully feelings will appear of anguish if that's the language that tells you one section one fifteen four point one applies at all it's not that that's not the how many tears works you know i i couldn't tell you the exact number i will say that that the word dear nothing you heard in the war of year that all the further in addition to the usual waiver section one one five s four point one even by the statutory mechanism regarding a defendant who failing who fails to appear to seek relief the defendant didn't use that either so there's like  double waiver here if you will only the second prong of the point here or the issue is present here namely whether the era was so substantial asking why the defendant fair trial again i've read has the authority that the defendant under this plan or scenario has the burden of showing prejudice please hold that body he must show error caused a severe threat to the trial's fairness in it not do so is our point even constitutional error is forfeited if you did not deprive the there's no evidence you know brought up that they were you know somebody's gonna get killed but it isn't inherent in that argument that there's bias simply because there was a structural  was and and your argument would be that the structure rather needs more than it needs to show actual toxin indicate or errata and that's if that's reasonably stated your positions yes you know as far as you know stand yes history him and you know thompson said not a reference book point house made here in history i prefer that a finding that the defendant was being tried by a biased jury would satisfy the second prong of the point here or there's no such fine no such even they vindication here it cannot be overemphasized that the jury selection taking place without without input from the defense which point the defendant made was because of the defendant's choice turning to the mirrors the issue here pointing to the tense brief page eleven and elsewhere is simply whether the judge committed plain error in ducking the or without the defendant being present or represented by counsel when the defendant had waived the right to presence and the right to counsel we as we see in my brief say you should not go off on the third district case of mccomas it did not involve a custodial defending the defendant there was absent a whole trial here that if it was in custody brought into court participated in court proceedings after the judge refused to let him withdraw his prior counsel and i want to emphasize that is not an issue here no the defendant states that he had with counsel there's no issue about the judge having heard in that there is zero issue involving that here the defendant return self the court held under section five one one five s four point one a this was not the failure to appear in the case at bar the instigator is stronger than rising or because there that event was absent for the entire trial here just for forty years i pointed out probably nauseum here the defendant begin given's and there was the record events no evidence of any prejudice the judge because of the defend absence from the order the judge tried to get the defendant to come but he said the judge said on the record you'll see that there is a fairly terse statement he would not force he would not have the officers forcibly removed the defendant from his cell and into court i mean you're past i've made references that you've picked up on based on the the judge just did not appoint counsel for a defendant who would raise counsel he did not force counsel on the defendant in violation of his constitutional right to represent himself have the judge done so we can find ourselves with the defendant here saying hey i have a right constitutional right not to have counsel or so i mean you did that's where we'd be facing if the judge in gone ahead and done it again this defendant was not just in custody but he also appeared in court then chose to leave the court voluntarily return to jail all defendants are not in custody as was this defend the aunt who was in the court and then left he did not a fail he did not fail to appear he appeared and then volunteer we chose to leave the defendant says that if he's not present and know what tourney the trial proceeds with no representative of the defendant true enough that's what happened here is by the defendant's choice and the judge said i'm not going to force it in here i'm not going to bob the ceiling in the courtroom no our adversarial system works there is no other alternative way to health reform dear if you don't have a representative from plans so that's what's different here and that's why this case does not showing of prejudice or bias against a structural error that is enough itself pictures just you know the old rules you used to live under right where you know who is it didn't matter because of