choice for the held that a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily chooses to go it alone and is competent to make that choice must be allowed to represent himself a trial the state of wisconsin use the forepart test to determine if a defendant to a lot of activity you know both in wisconsin and this court it seems that there are two things that legitimately can be looked at by the state and i guess we need to see whether that's what happened here one is the defendant competent to stand trial and godinez says that it is just a unified standard whether it's for pleading guilty standing trial waiving the right to counsel there's one competence standard then there's also the quality of the waiver and the waiver to the sixth amendment right to counsel it's got to be intelligent and voluntary and there the the godinez court seems to think that the supreme that those state courts they used the word more elaborate and wisconsin court understands more elaborate to mean higher in this court has as the language about that but if you could explain where you think the state has just crashed with this  provide more elaborate standards for exercising the right to represent so i don't know whether moral labrat means you know more factually rich or whether more elaborate means we can demand you know that you have an i q of one hundred twenty not an i q of eighty five right and to be honest you're on a that's that's not completely clear it's not completely settled some courts believe that the standard basically means you can raise the bar for the standard to stand trial so it's not just rational standing of the from the fuzziness because of course fuzziness is one of those areas where ties go to the state but clearer it is the quality of one's self representation adeptness in the legal system so what is it here with the state court the supreme court of wisconsin that strays beyond the clearly established boundaries well the court asked a number of questions  with the criminal courts mr money said he had absolutely no record been in criminal court before at least on five other occasions the court i deem that to be observational experience and essentially held that against him that he had never previously before represented himself in a criminal trial so do you think this language about being hasty or rash or disgruntled or all the other words that they used about mr money goes to the competence point and i think if there was constant supreme court was applying a waiting period requirement i think this is wisconsin and other states do for other certain personal decisions but i don't yes your honor i think that's exactly right and i think but there's a simple  that and that is you would you recess the hearing and you come back you say mr defendant you i think you're making a really foolish decision you have the right to make that foolish decision but i think you'd be a lot better off if you think about this for overnight or come back next week and we'll talk about it i didn't see anywhere in this record that mr in money actually ever withdrew his said that's what a district what a trial judge has to do in this situation is either get a good waiver of counsel or get the defendant persuade the defendant to withdraw his request otherwise this l that is the clear issue decided by forever and it draws very narrow bounds around the exceptions that might apply and simply deliberately simply is not one of those and i think you're right in terms of the thoughtfulness or time temporal aspect of th analysis if the court had taken a step back and said mr money i really want to think about this are you sure you still want to present yourself that he could either reaffirmed his request or withdrew it but of course simply denied it and so we have to x i think we have to accept the fact that mr money we urged his requests by costly trying to interject and made it clear that he absolutely wanted to represent himself and he obviously claim that he had thought about it what is the significance of the trial court's  invitation to renew the request so the wisconsin supreme court looks at that issue in terms of whether or not mr money knew knowingly chose to represent himself there are a couple of problems with that issue one there's a futility problem mr money never really urge his request that's true but i think just how much you just mentioned if you accept that he never went through it there's no need to rewrite it but more importantly or secondly at least request is that night because he was not competent in part and denied another part because it wasn't he were too close to the trial so there's no reason to believe that the quest would be granted as that the trial grew closer the interplay of the timing is is something that any any trial judge can understand here with the district with the trial judge here have been justified in telling  ramani in effect yes ok you can represent yourself but the trial date holds i'm not going to you know this is this is late in the game we've already been through three counsel the judge is understandably and the court determined that it was a hasty request this court's a lie is that pertinent at all i mean i would be surprised if i mean i've i've made hasty decisions in my life you've probably made a few most of this has i would like to think that doesn't mean that you're not competent to decide that if the hasty decision isn't what you really meant to do and is judge hamilton says here's a very easy remedy which is to say weighty with this judge was undertaking an inquiry to disqualify this fellow if you if you're trying to see if this is a sound decision in a valid waiver you've got to work at it in so that in a case like this instead this judge was pouncing on any potential signal of a problem to say oh then this is can't be a valid waiver hence i'm going to deny your request to represent yourself a request that was never withdrawn i've got to say i've i've i don't think i've ever seen so fundamental misunderstanding and forever has indicated in the state court's decisions in this case which seem to confuse there's plenty of room to disagree with forever and it's difficult for trial judges i've been there but but to respected you've got to treat it as a right and not a privilege i would i would bring the court's focus back who's happy is never going to wave to harvard law right and i made the point the point that i haven't made however is that the judge twice says that it's in that he's denying the request at this time and invites the defendant to renew his request at a later time understanding that you know a cooling off period if you will an opportunity for him to reflect on the circumstances he has just lost important motion this witness is going to be able to testify to the identification of him he's the person who was who was statement about an important privilege that that people have when they're accused of a crime so you know i'm not sure the judge just saying maybe i'll let you do some form of hybrid representation  of throwing it was constant supreme court under the bus here please take a look at what the trial court actually did on the issue of competency that never actually determined that he was not competent made some inquiry were regarding covenants he issues but the wisconsin supreme court it's based on the circumstances of the request well deserved first to the circumstances of the request so that under the facts and circumstances is the person making a knowing and intelligent waiver and this court's own decisions including united states  say that the obligation of the court is to determine that the person knows their rights and doesn't make hasty decisions like that but it's this is a no on this record it's very hard for me to escape the idea that what the state court was looking for was his ability to function i'll just say as a lawyer as or close to the way a lawyer would function in the trial and it's ignoring the supreme court's repeated state ments that the competence has to be the competence to wades it's not the competence to be a lawyer and i just don't see that here right i'm focusing primarily on the knowing and intelligent waiver  portion as opposed to cop company well knowing there's nothing to suggest that he's unaware of what lawyers can do there's nothing to suggest that he's you know he says i think i can do this for myself just as well you know he's we basically had two rationales one he's not going to be able to because he won't do as well as a lawyer would into this is a hasty decision and right and neither of those is consistent with for that's exactly what i'm going to is hasty would be one that a person is not aware of all of the consequences and understanding the the things that one is giving up a hasty decision is one that is made impulsively reflexive lee and the record supports  that is a correct rationale then a little passage of time should lead the defendant to withdraw his request to confer the reflection right correct yes but in this case the court did clearly deny the request i don't believe that it was actually on the table and he would have needed to renew his request a later time when he was invited to do so by the trial court essentially a cooling off period an opportunity for him to come back the next day and make the request that mr the granny points out that the judge's concerns about the trial date were only going to get worse as the trial date approaches and he wasn't going to get any better problem not a lot better about the nuances of evidence long writing your future background was what it was the judge seemed skeptical about his reading at the and the and the request again i'd ask the court focus on the facts in the case and that and this court's own own decision and united states feel which very carefully goes through  what it takes to make a knowing intelligent and voluntary waiver it rejects checklist of providing you know all of the rights that one is giving up but it does say that the person must have an understanding of their rights and not make a hasty decision if the court and hear hear the word he sees actually used by the supreme court i believe that it's supported by the facts of the case and it's not just you know it's the state's hill it's other cases relying on h from this court's own jurisprudence i think if this court were to grant habeas relief in this case it would need to square that with the united states feel and its other cases all right thank you very much thank you very much for your time expired mr grant if you want one more minute i will give it to you thank you i just want to make one quick point about hill i because i came up in the in there in the states argument hill is entirely consistent with our position he'll stands for the animal remarkably alone or he'll stand for the remarkable proposition an honor that a trial court has a responsibility to inform the defendant of the dangers of self representation but there is no litany of warnings that a trial court must recycle so a minimal amount of information communicated by the trial court about the the risk of representing yourself i correctly in which a defendant had waived the court accepted the waiver he went to trial and then claimed his waiver had been invalid yes your honor and we caution you have to be careful not to overdo the warnings in essence so that the  the court and of course thank you to th