would it be fundamentally thier oath allowable to use some of these invocation at some sort of civil proceeding or something maybe a guy need an application for a mortgage and want to get a house and somehow the statement that he made about how he's crazy or something like that there is indication could be used against him at the civil proceeding the answer is yes it could be so now the question is here we are somewhere in the middle of those situations of whether or not it can be used against him at a conference the fin and i think when wright says that it can't be used against him it would be fundamentally unfair to use it against him at the compensation hearing medina's says a competency hearing is a critical part of the criminal justice system thi is not just the civil proceeding outside i think somebody getting a mortgage but it's a different jury right oh certainly here a lot of times it's in other states the judge decides the question correct i think investable in front of a judge and jury oh no i don't think should be admissible period it would be it would be entirely in my view would be nearly a fundamentally unfair whether comes as part of the record whether the finder the determiner of the competency is made by the court or made by the jury i totally concede it was a stranger rehearing the guilt part of the case of course we've already decided that that's not proper should it come in in any fashion as relates to provide a fo those that go right to the edge the issue at all requires two things of course it must be a determination must be unreasonable under the terminations the united states supreme court decisions and also there must be the showing of prejudice the first element of whether or not wainwright penalized for the use of it against them that's how i raise and i address that in specifically in the traverse that i call the reply brief that i think when right says you can't use it to penalize somebody now i completely is different from must not rule is yes but i can't see it being somehow a diminished and of the nation court and so i could all i could also make the argument is actually has more importance to the criminal justice system how could you possibly you could make that argument that the problem is with our cabin got what twenty to fifty four d ones which is the supreme court most to determine that not me that argument and the chances of me getting on that court are very slight i agree your honor however i think when wright's wording in that allows for that interpretation because we're talking about the import of where the importance of the senate issue and when right came about and and the importance of what would come about in this company vons and make a purchase over there and those words used against you you're talking about a core part of the criminal justice system medina's of states so i think this very court said that the u s supreme court says decisions both way right medina talk about why  would be fundamentally unfair and i don't think it's i think it is unreasonable to interpret otherwise and i understand that at the requires it's very very strong standard that not only is it wrong but that unreasonable to still conclude i would read if you read ring when right in combination with medina and you see the importance of what conference hearing is the very fundamental basis of knowing what's going on to be able to to to talk about  let's talk about the facts in this particular case it's a perfect case to deal with if you had two doctors one doctor who had seen him on many many occasions for a long period of chronic talked about hearing voices and talked about all sorts of problems that he was having clearing classic examples of both the history and specifically in this case of being unable to understand what's going on and one physician well who takes a hippocratic oath and gives it a whole new meaning so that spends an hour with him doesn't administer a single test has difficulty understanding him because my client at that time it was entirely in spoke of it in these even the point where the vietnamese interpreter says to look to the doctor i don't think he understands your question have asked the first doctor i understand him dr sharma who did the government the government's witness in this case said that he didn't have enough time to do that because the client wasn't paying him he would have done more but it was not more time with him had he didn't retain clients i think they can but didn't feel it was necessary so he spent an hour didn't minister a single test and didn't minister and had trouble understanding him according to the interpreter spent a total of an hour with him and then comes and presented to the invoked emphasizing that the doctor and they used the invocation against him and then argued to the jury that he must have known what was going on he must have been confident he used that reasonable balance and so this is not  situation of someone coming in without giving in the case without getting something random rights and watching my client's behavior that would have been ok but here it promise was made to him nothing you say can be used against you and yet it clearly but let me put your similarity between right and when right the sanity of the defendant at the time of the crime  permutation and i think in yarbrough versus awful lot of the court says it's often difficult to tell what's permissible and what's not but in this case our position is that there is a pretty large distinction between appellant twice dr sharma said that he didn't administering tests because those are more important in a clinical setting and not a forensic setting and quite a portion of the deputy district attorney's argument focused on the just in the direction of a defense to a case which would have found him not guilty to the charges that are sitting behind or for the rest of his life or sex speculation well that that's not on the record before  has not yet decided on the case in court is not in the record but you have to you can't get much more fundamental as to what a trial is supposed to do to give somebody the right to defend themselves and he was not given that right and he would and the result of that is the penalty of sitting in jail for  jury found otherwise in the convent situation and unless there's something wrong with the way they did that there's no argument there right correct and what i'm saying is there's not only something wrong or something objective leon reasonably long about the way that proceeding putting the risk of the criminal part of the trial or do they invoke and they're putting at risk of the issue of whether or not they understand what's going on in the competency down they should know any trial and i think that's really what this is issues about and what should this court often talk about how it impacts on all the people that are right in the many states that your decisions control and everyone who gets a miranda warning if it's would be to face with that decision one or the other and i don't think that moment is meant to be