is whether the trial court's decision to deny the defendant standby time self on the day one trial was proceeding the jury was downstairs witnesses were present was an abuse of discretion such that it was denied a fundamentally fair trial but while it is clear that under second prong player the defendant will show up there an obvious error so fundamental that he was deprived of a fair trial now it should be noted that the burden of persuasion is on the defend that it's not this court's obligation or responsibility to meet that burden for the fandom and on appeal the defendant stated one line stand by counsel would have been useful to stone snowden in terms of helping him understand and challenge the state's evidence there is no way that they at single statement can meet the defendant's burden of persuasion and that matter but let me ask you this now bob when you look at the record and you see that this man did know what he was doing during the course of this trial and the judge was confused and gave reasons why he should not have stand by counsel because of this confusion how does a good read he received a fair trial structural error the illinois supreme court yes well when you're talking about structural error but when you look at the second prong of facts about integrity in the fairness of the trial certainly structural error may fall into day category and came people versus class for people versus thompson people versus washington in all of those cases the court described what they mean by second prong claim here for a second prong well in washington the judge ju representation up by easter but the thing that all of these classifications have in common is that they fundamentally they destroyed the framework of the five of the trial it's been described as systemic it's been described as trials where we can't really trust the resolve the matter how much evidence there is a guess the defendant because the framework of the system is somehow flawed this simply is not the case here the defendant has no right to stand by counsel in for radel it was recognized that he has a right to go pro se in mccaskill the defendant kept changing his mind on the court said yes a trial court can appoint standby counsel over objection but the important thing about mccaskill is that the united states supreme court said that and it has no right to do representation so because the defendant has no right to stand by consol there is no way in this case that the mere denial will stand by us will destroy the framework of the trial the defendant still had a fair trial here telling the under no evidence that would absolve him of the crime and he doesn't know how to get it into evidence and he asked the judge judge i need help and visit and the judge's confused and doesn't give and said i don't have a defense right that's correct that's correct and interestingly enough he had a wire with the wire allow him to say that he had no defense to the jury it could very well be that it was a all of these other player cases and the interesting thing about gibson is first fall it's a death penalty case and it gets and it was shown that the defendant did try to introduce evidence and that that he couldn't get in the evidence and the can see dead that's the foundation for some other evidence was lacking so perhaps you know perhaps get some would be decided differently today but the defendant is only asserting second prong player again of this case this judge on the defendant had been in court thirty times judge judy had seen the defendant twenty three times the defendant gave numerous continuance to the was a simple case that was knocked down class the defendant end of the day i understand that this court recognize some errors of fact but those errors of fact weren't the reason the standby counsel was denied the defendant was not entitled to stand by castle and the trial  he talked about the plane here he said the the purpose of the plane your world is to prevent miscarriages of justice and to protect the integrity and reputation of the court system so my question to you is is this a miscarriage of justice you had a guy who desperately wanted to plead guilty and i several occasions tried to plead guilty but couldn't get the deal that he wanted his so he was going to trial and so the guy who desperately wanted to plead guilty was found presume prejudice and if it presumes prejudiced isn't it the exact opposite of a case by case analysis don't you say in a second prong else is going to say a fundamental right has been denied here and therefore we don't even need to look to see if there's precious and so if you have to fall back and look to see if the if there was prejudice i just slipping back into a first prong analysis counsel and if it's friday wants to get up and say what he wants to say he has a right to do it because he's representing self pro sag and you can't stop him from doing that and so he wants to stand up and say i have no defense that's up to h my counsel isn't always going to be an area isn't always going to be first of all i hope frankly that never happens again the circumstances so unique but in this case we have a situation the court simply for ever reason no language of johnson is says that we find that the errors were so great that it affected the framework of the venice trial so i was a kid into a structural error because rick i list of the nature of the evidence the eleanor supreme court believed that the result of the trial was not reliable in people versus town center there was no two prong analysis the analysis is those those are structural error the only reason that there was a but you could always have second prong play in error if somehow it is found the defendant has been deprived of a fair trial or a fundamentally fair trial in some rather in big us manner because if that were the case it would be ruling would sometimes be correct it was sometimes not the correct how can you presume friendships yes we'll see how those two go together and so if you if you accept the fact that that this is a discretionary and sometimes a judge will be right and sometimes a judge will be wrong how can you say that the denial in one case is the denial of a fundamental right and therefore you have to presume precious it must be if it is to hold together they don't put it at the end because the defendant has no right to stand by consol the people's position would be that it can't be or i mean as long as the judge knows he has the discretion and i judge applies the discretion whether he gets it from or not is a matter of courtroom the integrity of the process doesn't have i don't you should come back our position is that it's immaterial to the issue at hand of standby counsel the judges statements whether they're interpreted as being accurate or inaccurate were statements that were in the process of the defendant deciding either to go pro se or pick up an attorney at the end of the day what's relevant in deciding on standby counsel is the factors and the right and gibson which is you know the three factors complexity the seriousness and experience with the trial system and there is no way to link those comments even if you assume that those comments are misinterpretations of the facts there is no way to link those comments