going back to what we have we have a guy who made a suicidal gesture whether was a real suicide or not is up in the air very early he makes his gesture he's examined for seventy for a moment that mr duncan deal is mentally ill because the medical records that are available to us show that from three to six weeks after he was convicted of trial three to six weeks after april thirteenth he was finally diagnosed with psychosis and dem here's everything we have now if he's not happy with everything they have then he can go whether he's represented or not represented that he can go and try to find whatever else he thinks there is and what else what else can they do  continue as well i think it may have indicated a number of things stretch kosinski it may have indicated that the defendant didn't want to disrupt the proceedings because the shirt person i'll point out to the court that the defendant has previously repeatedly tempted to  insensitive to this issue the judge points out and this is the next troops that page eleven well i can envision a situation where you meaning defense counsel maybe thirty others to your finest competency however it may be that if at the conclusion of the seventy two hour i'm not sure what well as to your point expensive i would say that for example even a bonafide suicide attempt which is the way i describe it alternatively in my brief even a bonafide suicide attempt made to cait extreme pursuant to one of those psychiatric examinations and differentiates that from the legal standard which is has there been substantial evidence presented to the trial court indicating that the defendant either does not understand the nature of the proceedings or case from the supreme court or from this court that indicates that that and even an act even a bona fide suicide attempts standing alone is necessarily an indication of mental incompetence in terms of the this issue of who or what was before the so the fact that no doubt was raised has been seen as an indication that that the defense counsel who ostensibly has greater viewings with this client than the court does not find a basis and in this case when so i think there is a role that defense counsel plays and that we that his silence on the subject is not necessarily indicative of incompetence and is the court also as a verb in this case there is no quoting here of incompetent defense counsel reported back to the district court that the prison which which typically maintains both jail and prison records in these cases had surrendered all of this records and there are in fact both jail and prison records in this case no additional records were located if the petitioner considered that and i would point out that it was the petitioner in pro se who was who was obtaining these records he didn't get this with the state of california well and as the court has indicated that the discovery issue the denial of discovery was not of basis of this appealed so the best that i can answer for you is that in my view and this is  ell i'll do the best i can as your question in my view the state would not be necessarily required to to obtain from every subsidiary government entity medical records but th honor i only my only knowledge in this case comes from the public record and i'm reading what was what was filed in the district court so whether in fact there were efforts made to deal with the sheriff directly i can advise the court i don't know what happened that is not reflected in the record latest incorrectly mr glassman that when the inmate is transferred from the jail to the state prison the medical records go from the county jail to the receiving prison that is the protocol described in the declaration filed by the prison facility and that was submitted to the district court and it's your position that when they were requests for records was made whatever the prison had to clean the stuff that came from the county jail was turned over to to him unfair question to ask you when you got this or the from the supreme court well maybe you don't know the top of your head and that's a different answer but it's not a question of just being limited in the questions of the viking appeal i'm not advocating my ndicate that the prison maintains both jail and prison records and that all such records that were in existence for this petition are were provided to him the point that i would like to end with because i do think it is an important point however is as i indicated under drop and under cases from the circuit the issue is what evidence was presented to the trial judge and that the existence of what are at this point largely hypothetical competency inquiry and we also know that that the defendant the petitioner is returned to the trial court and that his counsel does not raise the issue again so i think in context i attorney general's office saying i made a phone call and i wrote a letter to you prison and they provided me with everything they had and i provided everything i have to the district and is yes that's in the answers also you  i'm not sure you're zeroing in on the language i'm talking about but the broader point is this what difference does it make what those records say if the judge didn't see them i mean the records show that he thought he was barney fife and he's living in mayberry you know with  reading those records as to what makes you think those records even go to him i mean it i don't know the california receiver never is on it we have a very similar procedure for someone in gauges in what might be a suicidal act they study personally two hours whether he poses a danger to self or others in a fee does then they go ahead with a civil commitment proceeding through a separate channel if he doesn't then that's the end of the game he's released from the seventy two hour hold the trial judge has nothing to do with it just happens this event happens to have occurred in a court room you didn't understand the nature of the trial hings are as versus ashcroft