good today can we call the st case please with the attorneys presenting argument please approach introduce yourselves tell your last names if you would  within these fifteen minute crammers we would appreciate it with that flexibility as i said please keep in mind that these microphones are for recording not implications so please make sure that we're able to make this all public later by speaking of the microphone the trial court to give other reasons later in a written order but i'm what were those reasons and the reasons that you gave for that are he said it was not a clear and unequivocal request to represent himself because mr rainey's prior class  mr rayney again was not capable of representing himself but both of those reasons in the order in a written order were not relevant or appropriate reasons to deny a request represent himself like that if he would the case wanted to represent himself he filed a motion ahead of time this wasn't a spontaneous decision that was a result of frustration and he wanted to discharge his attorney because his attorney did not agree with him i'm trialing a motion to suppr investigative alert rather than a warrant is unconstitutional so this wasn't a frivolous motion that the defendant wanted to file he came into court the court said your request to proceed pro se is tonight i so that the tr well course those who look to whether or not it a kind of vacillates back and forth between wanting counsel and wanting to represent himself but if you look at that case as it really goes to it with respect to that finding whether or not it's within the same statement for example and by as the court the defendant had said additionally he wanted to represent himself and then he changed his mind sunday morning counsel but the purpose of preventing of defendant from doing that is so that he doesn't abuse the system or manipulate the system and here there was no indication when he had previously asked to go pro se that he was doing so to manipulate the system he truly wanted to represent himself and and this particular case his reasons were very clear and i we do feel guilty we saw justice should we simply be looking at this in the own in light of the entire context of the proceedings and the more than one time where there is a reversal of the request to suffer abuse and then the withdrawal of the city and then  believe that he really wanted to represent himself and that the reason is because he wanted the reason this court should or should accept that is because of the fact that he felt strongly about filing a motion to suppress as the public defender was willing to file that motion to  appreciation needed for knowing an intelligent waiver whether a defendant can make a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel is very different from whether to find it has the ability to represent himself at trial and m the courtroom right now even though it's a defendant's trial you know you have the right to be present you can be kicked out isn't he also have the right to say this is what my trial is going to look like this is what this trials will look like if i let this guy go pro se and i'm not letting that happen well that that he has that w outbursts were happening in inappropriate behavior it was happening just wilson never said you forfeited your right to represent yourself he did not find out that behavior rose to that level but he did say that when later in those words that just as  well because we don't know if the defendant when it behaved inappropriately going forward these were two occasions out of many occasions dizzy yet though in him you have her as a lawyer never seen anything like the description what he did in proceeding that is correct however when he filed this this rd request to appear pro se and it was denied he didn't react and appropriately he didn't he didn't have an outburst except at the court's ruling granted he was represented by counsel but he wasn't shy about speaking out he said many times this lawyer is now representing that it cajun that it was it would be about everything and once again really it really was just a matter of playing court not at all he wanted to file a motion to surprise and he this was not a frivolous motion he believed that he had been arrested on lawfully and on has to show manner and he wanted to challenge that before the court in this no came up the eve of trial this  more time and even the public defender said this won't take more time your honor the officers are under subpoena and they will be here anyway for the start of trial we can address the motion to suppress that and then move on to trial and the defendant never asked for more time interests the resulting guilty pleas for involuntary there are several pieces cited and the breeze where as a defendant as forced to be represented by counsel they have no faith and already from nineteen whether or not he was is beside the point but the point is that he was clear he wanted to represent himself so when he came into court he felt he didn't have a choice other than to plead guilty why not he didn't feel  and requested to have counsel reappoint so in light of all of that what judge wilson was faced with defendant's request to represent himself a rd time judge wilson in light of everything exercise discretion properly so he makes a motion to have the judge transfer him to cook county jail and the judge tonight defendant was unhappy to say the least he walked out of the courtroom it took several i do see security guards to go around him and bring him back behind that cable and one of those is the serious misconduct the defendant puts a lot of weight in the brief but not here argument about what's said in the three categories that would simply it's four and one of those is serious misconduct while representing yourself as a reason why you're not capable of representing yourself and certainly that is true and you will say in his written order after the fact explained both that this was a political and also the defendant was capable of representing himself in a dignified manner and case but the fact that this motion may have had perhaps some merit is not does not a factor to consider and terminating whether a request to represent oneself is clear and always had a reason he wanted to put a clinical examination on won he has some other motions he wanted he wanted some d n a evidence which the public defender was trying to be careful with there but it was clearly implying it was not favorable to him he always had a himself he was disruptive throughout both hearings and so sure they start the trial but that based on defendant's history before the court in this case there's nothing suggested suddenly he would become a model it's a model defendant actions and certainly that is something that for the judge consider and again this is an abuse of discretion standard so the think looking at the entire record defend his behavior while he actually was represent himself whether was arbitrary and his detention was not lawful and i don't mean to let again the merits of that motion right now my point in bringing that up is simply to say this was not a frivolous motion for the purpose of delay he simply wanted to file this motion and he felt strongly about it so the fact that he was asking for more time and that he wasn't filing a frivolous pleading just to delay proceedings or cause problems in the order manipulate the system this indicates that this wasn't a he said just question when the trial court denied his friend i asked yes he had inappropriate behavior in a prior occasions but it did not stop the court from conducting his business he got through every motion and lemony he addressed the jury instructions and most importantly he did not find out that behavior rose to the level of conduct that would result in touraine his right to represent himself and i do want also to now that although he had previously been allowed to represent himself and then changed his mind that does not mean that this rd request was unequivocal in any way because it was request was still on the political because it was clear what he was asking and that's what courts really look to in determining whether or not a request is unequivocal they want to know whether or not this is really what the defendant wants if you look at