and judge hansen acknowledged in bed three years plus a living gay should over whether or not mr goff should be allowed to represent himself was caused was a result of mr goss trying disruption i don't think the record sustains we sustain any finding that mr gough was disruptive to the extent that he caused these disruptions any just ructions caused delays there was a confidence issue there was a kind of confidence issue which was insulting language they were articulately put together they raised a legitimate issue mr gloss was able to handle himself in court there's no question that mr gough was able to represent himself just look at what happened in the trial when we finally did  can say well it may be true what was wrong but we don't we have to decide whether what they did what the trial court did at the time it did it with the knowledge that it had at that time it does and i would say the record does not justify judge him or did you deny him m off right to represent yourself as otherwise head decision may have been by mr go off this the record does not show that mr golf was incapable of representing yourself even if you made mistakes it never did show  brutal assaults on a court or a party or a judge or defense attorney or the prosecutor gives a judge was to think about should this guy represent himself because the judges consort with the defendants or responds right to a fair trial while at the same time trying to preserve his or her right to speak trial so shouldn't we look at this delay as neutral because the trial court defendant should not be representing himself because he simply not top of the do so yes but i'm talking about somebody who cannot even do the fundamentals of keeping them so you keep them quiet keep it of putting together that we need to briefly touch on i just want to leave time to just that if there were any question the trap claim if the defendant notes that we use this horrible scorecard scoreboard approach and it is using the language from parker that you are looking at  this matter and we are obviously not contesting that the defendant was adamant with his demands for serving his rights as far as the reasons for the delay there were many balancing tasks going on between multiple rights for the defendant i guess the speedy trial that your hours have have addressed this morning we're looking at his right to his b b travel we're looking at his right to become client with the law we're looking at right shoe a fair trial on both sides ensuring that somebody who is not a competent is not being tried without due process and that is a lot of what was going on yes he was not entitled to a fitness evaluation in this case he was evaluated by people who did find he could not represent himself the judge comment more and more questionable the people did raise the fitness issue and evaluator multiple i think to evaluate her surround him on a pint he was on fish he was not entitled to that the judge then out that you are looking at what the knowledge of the judges at the time he was seeing this defendant in the courtroom and even after he had his counsel delbert he was removed from the courtroom a he was denied it i believe until the motion just substitute counsel were to go pro se i believe place if i remember correctly looking at their request to go pro se may have started in the second motion but for the majority of that time he was requesting the there is a range to suffer a presentation the people are not saying that it has it is not the people who maintain the judge in good faith was concerned about both the behaviors showing signs of incompetence and overall incompetence in the defendant should be able to adequately defend himself in court yes he may have ended up doing a very strong job once he came to the time for trial but at the time that these motions were being denied he was not yet showing the judge that that was a good decision to let him go pro s last that a shell and the more actual prejudice that needs to be shown the actual prejudice is determined through the three interests the speedy trial is trying to protect that's the third is the limitation of the possibility that the defense will impair the delay and it has been held that of this three and that is the most serious when considering those three interests here or here there little hindrance of his ability to prepare his case i have to believe all the same witnesses who testified at the first trial were able to testify at the second trial it was very thoroughly cross examined very detailed constant sam in a shed his foster daughter who he was remembering details she couldn't even remember so there wasn't a concern about the delay making it making people able to remember information so you are back total three interests and the judge in this case dead heat he did say there was a problem with the fact that he was incarcerated for ten years awaiting trial at the same time he did not find any impairment to the actual presentation of the so it is a balancing between the factors in prejudice as well as the four overall darker factors and in this case the judge had only found had only attributed the defendant's actions were continuing to concern the judge that its minimum it would be a neutral delay as the defendant was also contributing to part of that t the the judge found that it shouldn't happen and therefore it would seem to me in the judge's view or negligent finding it would informed of what was happening with gamma c they cultured poured into the course of this wasn't a case where like crane where they sat around on the mandate and were trying to get it done there were no permanent objections from the point you can see when in december ok the request for information was addressed at the end of october guessing that when she jail in december at there was a discussion that in january of two thousand and twelve that additional information the sending of additional documents at which point again there was no objection to the delay because the court's in the parties had already started not cooperating with counsel in the past of this was an awareness that counsel half of it being may be sending additional information if the defendant continued to refuse to cooperate with psychiatrists so that the state and that's all we're arguing here as well so i think we're consistent with the don't our position is just summarized is that what this what the speedy trial and