justice berger and they for read a case in this case in his dissent he stated that he was opposed to a rule that would permit a defendant to represent himself for two reasons one you believe that it would permit the prosecution to chain an easy conviction and number two he didn't think that the criminal justice system should be used in order to bring up a point and that is the chief justice is concerned concerns were borne out in this particular case and not soley because here we are the petitioner was pitted against an experienced prosecutor in this case and not solely because the trial court denied the petitioner a his request for a continuance what occurred in this case is that the defendant the petitioner was denied his right to prepare a defense soley because mainly because during the course of the trial he was not permitted access to a order as a result during the entire trial he really was detained at a facility which did not have a long library and that of course curtailed his ability to defend himself i would like to give the court an example of how this lewis was handicapped in his ability to defend himsel first a little background information prior to the beginning of the trial the court held some up women area matters one of them included granting the defendant dealt with the defendant who asked that he be allowed access to a library proof before the trial started pretrial access to the library during the actual trial itself he was granted narrow decision said fred it does not obligate the court to provide library access to a defendant but they could only have been referring to his pretrial library access and then t that particular case but the supreme court ignored all the other case of bounds and ignored laws which dealt with vengeance rights prepared defense and to be able to use the tools  the legal tools necessary to implement his defense and how it's going to defend and defend himself unless he has a right to do some research in the law library and i think i submit that that was his handicap emotion to bifurcate and that at that point somebody else interrupted them and then they for they didn't continue in that vein also now then after we got to the trial itself certainly after the trial as  started the prosecutor made a motion to introduce in evidence and exhibit this exhibit contained a record of the defendants prior strike convictions to burglary convictions now this was this is a burglary case that event and instinctively knew that if the jury learned about his prior burglary convictions it wouldn't help him in this particular case so he objected but the trial court overruled the objection now we advance to the end of the trial the defendant is convicted and then after that for the first time he's transferred to the procureur module where he now has access to a law library so he starts to do some research and he learns for the first time what it means to bifurcate a trial so he prepares a motion for a new trial and in doing so one of the grounds is that the court erred in denying him his right to bifurcate the trial so then there was a hearing in the matter and the court denied the motion and stated you didn't make you did not make a pretrial motion was that under eight and that was the context in which it was decided they basically said that's an interesting issue we might visit it one day however at the present time you know this is not and it clearly establish right so any did made no distinction between pretrial and host trial issues there's a question of whether the certificate of a permit going to ask you this you know that i'm looking at this requires prison authorities to assist in that and the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in but it says the fundamental constitutional right of access requires authorities to assist inmates set or by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons traine until after the trial was basically over and the judge and he was about to argue before the jury and obviously no a library access isn't forced on prisoner but we go back to the fact that cain itself we got reversed and because we are obviously thought that this is pretty established that you had access if you were representing yourself you didn't give that up when you when you gave up your right to counsel but the supreme court looked at it otherwise issue covers this whole section in the the flu or what i call the united states versus blue it issue and that was whether or not the trial court unconstitutionally imposed upon him the mandatory choice of either going to trial exhausted now i would like to respond to what he said in his opening argument i've seen to think that the questions he raises about the little example he gave about whe the defendant did not seem to be aware that he should have made a pretrial motion to bifurcate that of course goes to the quality of his own representation which he cannot obviously raise at this point and when he says about the of the correctness of that decision by saying that we can rely as persuasive on my circuit authority however i like milton versus morris we found out if that nice or decision goes against thumb of the federal courts in terms of providing adequate access if you do not provide adequate law access and these are post convicted people as as i said before that would pretty much in trouble they provide paralegal i think for about this that might be an adequate substitute e case and should have held a hearing to determine whether or not to send mr lewis actually asked to represent himself on the day of the trial solely for the purpose of delay and he didn't hold this hearing you just assume they