this case must be were intended for a new trial because the trial court failed to ensure the record does not reflect that dell boyd knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional right to a jury trial now pretrial investigation the stablished that bell was a young man with some fairly substantial mental deficiencies having been born addicted to cocaine he then he suffers from attention deficit disorder and depression he has the reading and verbal skills of an elementary school child and yes substandard reasoning and comprehension ability health procrit was aware of all these court had to go on or give further explanation but that's just showing us an example to the court that ok this is not an average defended he needs a little extra he document untied the jury waiver is the actual or signature answer yes and indicates to me did you wish to give up your right to a trial by a jury and have a trial by judge is that right yes anybody me any promises do you know are you making that decision of your own free will yes you can ask for an explanation of any of those things like he asked for explanations of what asked him do you understand that he did so there's no indication or the judge should have just assumed that this young man who you know with such severe mental issues which automatically great extent on the one year gap between the the judge's full and complete explanation of what a jury trial is and you know you don't forty years later and finally gets the point where he's you know waving the jury trial  judge is the capitaine really that important or is it sort of a red hearing no it's extremely important in this case it would be and i think that a normal defendant but we don't have a normal dividing he who has reading comprehend if he had problems remembering and comprehending what he's reading in a day to day level with it's an incredibly under reasonable to expect this one sentence made a year prior to somehow  it would be completely unreasonable to read it would lead you to believe that attention deficit disorder prevent someone from understanding the right to a jury trial well young as there's no again man that you can't just you know say something to once and expect him to you know understand it for a lifetime and plus the court never asked him if you understand it understood he just told a judge says he initially he to are you telling us if we rule in your favor every time a judge sees so in the background report which the judge may not have before him at the time you know the pleas entered that somebody has this kind of disability that they're going to have to engage a psychologist to interpret whether the person actually understands what a jury is as opposed to what it judges or you know where were we going what road are we headed down here or you're not asking this court to adopt a new rule i'm just  has to do is go a little farther than you might normally just you know i have a problem just applying following here because it dealt with a person who was raised in a foreign culture we are jury trials didn't was watched television or you know east been schooled in american schools knows what the difference when a jury trial and judge trailers do you have a case other than form that you can strongly rely on that would get you where you need to be understood the jury trial for a different reason than for boys then bell that doesn't change the fact that there's in pair of cases as an indication that the defendant may not have under it's only understood the  of these things that he suffered from interfered with his ability to understand the court's explanation is a person who is bipolar even capable of u out for an hour because he can't focus for an hour then each day it doesn't mean that they're not intelligent again your honor i'm not saying that dealt with incapable of understanding waiver with knowing and intelligent and rethink given his background given the fact that he didn't understand things that the court was telling him show that this court should have done something more and again we're not asking for the moon here all we're asking without the court should have be given at the time of the waiver give an explanation what if you're a trial is a difference between a jury trial and adventure trial and maybe case so unless you have any further questions sa record in this case it's clear that there is sufficient evidence to affirm it should be noted that the defendant was v c acts he was found that to stand trial he was found legally insane and it was found that he understood his miranda rights when he was some legally scase was originally set for a bench trial and both the trial judge and defense house all engaged in conversations about scheduling or the bench trial and both of those occasions found in the record at l three and the court and the defense attorneys have conversations about their scheduling because she was scheduled for a jury trial the court was schedule for a jury trial and they didn't think they were going to be able to put a bench trial in and the defendant never indicated that he had any questions between a jury trial a bench trial further during the appeals process judge claps explained to the defendant what he needed to do to protect his right to an appeal in the defendant again voices confusion i don't understand that what that means the notice of appeal i knew thirteen and fourteen the court thing goes on to explain that to the defendant this record shows that this defendant was engaged in clearly had no compunction about asking the trial judge what was happening and this trial the defendant argument before this court is nothing but pure conjecture this record should also reflect the assistant public defender in this case did a really nice job representing this defendant not just legally but she went above and beyond the call of duty she had the defendant's foster mother and she came in at every court date she testified or talked to the judge briefly about getting off will be about curfew restrictions about what kind of a boy this defendant was whether she was going to have trouble you know controlling this curfew it turns out the defendant one of being prompting this public defender went to great lengths to go through the defendant's background to engage him and a sponsor mother and review all of his records she was the one that had the defendant and at twenty six in california a defense can only believe that if they didn't strike the blow if they didn't fire the guy that they can't be guilty that's a confusion about accountability more than anything else i think the record  accountability it was argued by the public defender that he wasn't the one striking the blows he was the followers and the judge makes several comments about that so that he must have been an idiot for being a follower that you need to pick a better group of was told what a jury trial was he had many opportunities to question that if he was confused and the record yourself that he asked plenty of questions about things he didn't understand the defendant's argument is pure conjecture between the a well established case law this court doesn't have a basis for reversing accordingly based on those contained in our brief as well as the arguments today the people are  good job is irrelevant to the question at hand if the question is whether or not the record shows that the waiver with knowing and intelligent and whether or not the defendant brought in the what the foster or the defense counsel prog to foster mother and it was