evidence that submitted during the trial it clearly was not it's undisputed it was not admitted so why wouldn't why you know why wouldn't that answer there be well it wasn't and the evidence no the jury can see it end of story you know can we go out to the scene well you know that's not part of the evidence can we you know can we can we have an encyclopedia no you know can we have internet access no but in this situation reopen the trial and to bring the jury back and and to admit the evidence you understanding that's from what my my understanding of years on rules of criminal procedure and the rules of evidence but i cannot cite to do you know what my asking whether you know position and i don't want to mislead according to state that i do have that and i would be more than happy to provide supplemental briefing on that specific issue it would be unusual though wouldn't it to bring the jury back in not i don't know your honor i don't honestly know the answer to that i think so it certainly would juries are brought in all the time in fact listen if you put in you accidents that's not something that either side is argued in arguments are already done so if you bring in new evidence and the parties have argued it and then you we up an argument and you know i mean i can tell you having been in state courts for twenty years it is unusual to me open a case after jurors begin to wonder ration well then your honor let me let me shift focus then because the springs up i think very important issue what the court is asking now is what was the harm to mr francis because when he was excluded because the judge couldn't have provided this information anyway actually the question is whether this is a critical is the rare occasion most read a case is come up in the circumstance when the defendant is claiming that the trial court unreasonably denied him his right to represent himself under forever so there are not many cases out there on this particular wasn't where the judge was saying i'm not going to let france have his say he thought he was getting francis said but in my opinion not your are that is exactly a for reddit violation because we don't have a messenger there day to day matters of court the jurors would like to break for lunch at eleven thirty instead of twelve he would we would be hard pressed to say that that was a violation of mr francis for other rights because it really is not a matter of in point as you think  to judge the judge can say that would mean really putting some evidence in allowing the parties to argue considering instructions and having perhaps secur himself have the right to be pretty he was his own right that if he said i don't want to i want to sit in my cell i want you to go tell the judge i don't want that and you know i don't want that admitted then just a judge have to go drag him out of his holding cell make him sit in chambers no said and that's what he wanted his counsel to do and i'm sorry i don't i misunderstood that part yes your honor i think if this right this time he didn't say that right now but what i'm saying is if the court having hearing and said this is what i believe you know after hearing everything i think happened you told your lawyer you want it you didn't want it in and that's what i you know that's what i believe after hearing what everyone has to say there is and that is correct but that also putting puts mr frost in the position of being brought into an evidentiary hearing where he's going against the person that was supposedly appointed to advise and to assist him and if the court finds in favor of the favor of the advisory council mr france has no remedy you can seek ineffective  even consider really mr francis and there's nothing on the record at all to suggest that he wasn't given a choice an interview he wasn't told you couldn't tell me to be a messenger or that the fact of the matter is mr kronk should never have been put in the position that he would have to be making this argument he should have been he should have been brought in and your honor with regard to me using this is the sort of michel i mean i never gave people advisory council exactly for this reason it's just like if you want to represent yourself you have the right to go down in flames any way you want but he wanted advisory council right he didn't object to advisory council right on and so he wants to use in the way that he wants to use them and he wants to take your claim or not and if you look at the record in this case at no time at no time during the trial did mr france acquiesce and participation by his counsel there were a series of course of events conferences from which  he there was placed in a very difficult situation because he was shackled for reasons that are completely beyond and anything in his record so we have to make the choice there but otherwise he cross examine witnesses he argue points of law to the court important in terms of that jury you know is asking certain questions why you know why isn't that a critical stage to proceed in terms of because depending on how the court resolves it i mean the courts interfacing  said i didn't tell him that so you're saying you wouldn't be unhappy but i mean i mean that was the question that i was asking you co counsel if the court had held an evidentiary hearing heard what  mr france said also heard what his advisory council said and then said you know what mr france based on all of the circumstances that i still remember seeing him go out coming back again and then this was what it said and also i've gone through all your positions that you had during the trial and the strategy you all to come you know i don't believe you when you say right now that that's not what you told them i don't believe you and i believe that your lawyer said what you meant and then at the end of the day  you know when then the court can say well i think that you can use an advisory council and it was your choice to use your advisory council to come in as a messenger and give me that so there's no you know there is and there's no structural error in the situation you're talking about there would be no education going to be different there would be time to deference with that step in the ninth circuit last is different i don't believe that there is a conflict and this is why in our situation there  nine eleven tape and then he withdrew that motion is that an accurate statement of what the record would show that is an accurate statement your honor and as we put forth in our brief however that the defendant which drew his he's waving his he's waving his request with that he didn't say you have been successful but that was that wasn't it he did say that in another instance when he said he was going to try to convince mr france not to make an opening statement and then he returned the court said i've been suppressed i've been successful