so would make a difference if on the date that he decided to waive his right that he asked the judge to preserve the tapes from the alleged burglary that occurred at a particular location he burned to i there any cases that say we look at the entire record to determine whether or not there was a knowing and intelligent waiver the right to counsel and that if there's a compliance you saying that if you look at this record he represented himself for a very discreet period of time and is your argument that this discrete period of time resulted in a however you want to say it because even regardless of whether the admission is technically complied with the supreme court rule said in a plain way that the suppression hearing was going nowhere that it was america's claim or it was you know had no real chance of success so what is your response to that kind of good would you say that's what this legal sophistication means in all these cases the supreme court has discussed it in a number of cases where the defendant's criminal background was something that the court would look at to take a look at this idea about not being eyes regarding a minimum sentence in one of the cases and say that the record shows that he was actually clear from his own the you got an attorney for the second part of this trial and the attorney did not reserve it in the his motion for a trial that's a goner so what case would you direct us to that would say that based away with the two prong plainly or adapt the federal rule and they they pretty much said we're going to keep it the way it is right the language that's always been used is that it's a clear and obvious here and it so i get one did this isn't your position that this war of the information makes just him it motion to suppress the trial and in these entire proceedings that somehow he wouldn't have waived his right so that he least supreme court johnson said that the defendant doesn't assert in any way that miss decision to waive counsel would have been different had he been specifically case correct  well one of your arguments is that this is not structurally or correct correct but if we take the other description of playing here in used it in this case there's something there's some suggestion out there that the supreme court has told us that only structural you know there's a mount the second one and then there's other cases that suggest that courts are not limited to structural errors when second correct and there's no prejudice that we have to look in it's presumed if it is a clear and obvious error that it was so is so simple as if there is some technical defect in the four hundred one that we're going to say that means there wasn't knowing and intelligent waiver of the right counsel i mean is there really any case that says it well one was created for the purpose of trying to ensure a knowing and intelligent way but would anyone disagree that even if the judge followed for it doesn't necessarily mean that the waiver was knowingly made and at the same time if the court goes beyond and does war or does less that doesn't mean that there wasn't a knowing and intelligent waiver he says that he was unable to impeach the dispatcher concerning what happened that night whether you turned had occurred with the other officer with north or south in so that he claims that he went without a valid not the motion to suppress was eric list or not i really don't think that this case has anything to do with whether he could have won the motion i really don't i think it's about whether or not it was a volunteer waiver do with his is proceeding with a motion to suppress and i don't think that the working decide this we had or either and i perhaps i don't even agree with what the work a says or that what you said this isn't a critical even though the illinois supreme court of the u s supreme court has indicated that the right to counsel is equal to the right to self representation because of our notion of the respect for the individual and that's why we allow people to represent themselves but i don't think there's anybody sitting out there that would ever say that a brewer say isn't always work better but in this case maybe the lawyer would have won this motion but i don't think the case is about whether the lawyer would have been able to win this motion just don't see it any way do you wish to a