to being appointed to represent mr lopes on this i did not know what the s t p act was used to be this d p is basically a hybrid it's similar in nature however the rules of criminal procedure guide the proceedings  he has to have the existence of demonstrated propensities towards acts of sexual assault or acts of sexual molestation of children i'm sorry this is the fourth problem in people versus alan on the screen door basically indicated that the state must prove at least one act of one attempt at a sexual assault or sexual molestation now that problem is important for the second argument of player in my brief on the first argument is that the court should not have allowed mr loves to represent himself by a very nature of be as good as the person has to have a mental defect or disorder for at least one year prior to the filing of the s t p case in a criminal case if a i think we can make the stretch the as you can in a criminal case that he might be able to represent himself because he's able to the state should quickly with the judge or you know talk to the judge and answer questions adequately about who it is responding because it's not criminal in nature he stated the pendants mental illness substantially impairs his ability to understand the nature and proceedings purpose of the proceedings against him and his ability to assist in his own defense he then a find that   therefore i can i do wonder stand in this particular instance where the court can find after reading dr who in your report that he could adequately represented himself sexually dangerous person case the the individual has to be evaluated by two separate evaluators to determine whether or not they are in fact sexually dangerous dr kildare also agreed with dr cooney those statements about then all individuals tried under the s d p act would have to have attorneys because by nature of the first element that they can mental disease or disorder i'm going to go that far and say that an individual could have a for pedophilia disorder and nothing else that could make them a sexually dangerous person but in this particular case all three doctors that evaluated him diagnosed him with schizophrenia either alcohol disorder cannabis use disorder other specified personality disorders and the pedophilia disorder he has a lot more going on there than possibly someone who might have a pedophilia disorder that is mentally capable of representing him so yes as i stand here today because the first element of  this issue is that the person has to have a mental disorder i would say for the integrity of the judicial system yes every individual should have counsel on but i think that would be a case by case basis and i think that the trial were abused  by failing to look at the records that indicated that he was unable to assist in his own defense bad enough itself should have been a red flag to him that he may not be competent to conduct his own defense now with respect evidence in a criminal case closely balanced and that they were alone threatened to tip the scales against the defendant while that they were so fundamental and of such magnitude that the defendant is denied the right to a fair trial in this particular case the state ha evaluations from from the doctors that stated he had the mental disorder he had the pedophilia disorder which provided the second and third element of the  his name his age how far he had gone and school to meet two thousand hour studying was a little bit telling as to maybe his actual abilities he asked with the judge asked him where he got that he said mainly in jail eyes where he had his two given information that mistake was not made if it shouldn't be in if he should not be able to record not represent himself in this case he had two doctors two experts that that indicated this is this individual could not focus could