trial lawyer and i have had experiences with defendants similar to mr mccracken and they are a trial court's nightmare in the sense that they i mean on the one hand they can be extremely manipulative in terms of when they they're equivocal about bringing things up they know how to fling out i want to represent myself but no i don't i want another layer but no i don't have one here and there always usually happens and then of course then what we call in the state court marston issues they're not letting me run the case all of those things see how it all in caps a way they didn't ask and you have a trial judge trying to march towards trial and enter always happens on the eve of trial and there's never anyone there there's never a player there that says yes i'm going to take over the case i've been retained by the family and i can be ready to go on a certain day so you have all of those issues forth and he keeps you know and then when he's pressed he says well no i don't really want to represent myself or all what does that mean if you stand by counsel no i don't have one way or here but i would like someone else this is not  want to represent him and i need two weeks i need thirty days i need whatever as far as i can tell in the record that's just it's all and kind of a hypothetical speculative discussion i would like to hire someone to i don't see anyone out there that he is pretty high on them them in netflix have scale i mean i always get concerned about for data but we've got the court directly asking him do you want to yourself no i want to hire chaffery steinhorn the court indicated that he could not do so because it would cost to lay and then there's the court asks what's going to be different with another mccracken again refer to twelve lawyers who claim they agree with his analysis court it's explained i know most of them and they wouldn't believe this line of quote unquote bull that they were that we're here to listen to then  the court asked again do you want to represent yourself mccracken answered no i don't want to i want jeffrey stein porn to represent me and then we go through this whole thing and then the end of that when the court said this is over mr johnson you are going to represent him the defendant no i will the court you're going to represent him mr johnson if he changes his mind the motions denied if i can represent myself because he doesn't listen to my and then that's correct your time and he was free to do so any time right and they did have to ask the court's permission to hire private counsel duty you might have to ask the court's permission for a continuance but it doesn't have to that he doesn't have to you know he can he can fire johnston whenever he wants heavy we have this that's his own business he's telling the court what he wants to do but he can do that any time and if he is unable to do that he wants to represent and so often on the very last page of the transcript the the reference quoted by the government counsel for the court's friend johnston who the court had endorsed vouched for earlier talked about what a great lawyer he was how he was a personal friend how they knew each other from athletics and in the courtroom and in the community myself again a very clear direction that should have triggered of forever inquiry well there was a for at inquiry and now when he would start to say well you want to represent yourself i think you'd be crazy if you do it but you and then he goes no i don't want to anyone when it was really press she would say no he didn't want to represent himself but then he would flip these things back and when and he wanted the taxpayers to pay for a lawyer lawyer of his choice and the court clearly told him no the taxpayers are they're not going to pay for it you you go ahead and get yourself any never does well that's a death an issue and by no but they're all it's hard to they all keep coming up in the same conversation and so when we talk about whether there's so why is there is this fast march to trial why is it that mccracken cannot be called milly and reasonably inquired of to the court as to why he's concerned about not having visitation with  big concern about starting the trial on october three just a couple of working days after this hearing which was based upon the first meaningful attorney client contact that ever happened between counsel and mccracken  quickly came to the determination of what is the issue here the issue between mr johnston and mr mccracken was one of what defenses were going to be presented at trial mr mccracken stated the district court's remarks didn't give me a lot of furring to the initial remarks that he was very irritated with mccracken he was he well and again we don't have the context of what was actually going on in the courtroom we don't know what the what movements or anything that  this between johnston mccracken which was what defenses to present at trial how to conduct his defense at trial just well except i guess all of it you can't it's really hard you probably both want to make everything really just great but it all  one off close in to the other in this case and anyone that's been in a trial court understands how they all flow into the other because first you have this competency first and then then essentially then you have issues about he's unhappy with the lawyer and they go into is it does is it the nature of the defense is that he's not doing things that he and competent is entitled to know boyer and then interspersed in all this well i'll represent myself are i what i want to hire someone mccracken to postpone requesting alternate counsel till after he found was found competent i think it's you know because we're we're we're jamming him because it's on the eve of trial but he's asking all these things and saying no we can't have a delay but s important but it's not it's not that important it shows that the issues would be the same mr johnson was prepared to conduct the trial he indicated that he contacted a witness who was prepared to present the rest offense he didn't fact get that witness out that when his prepare with the government at the at the june twentieth hearing we the indication was that we're going to keep the october third trial date that was the idea that i think at that point for october third i but then  concede that a district court could get so annoyed and so abusive that it would be impossible for a defendant i'm not saying here but under some circumstances if the contact by the district court were so extreme that a court proceedings while will put you on i do think that i do think there could be that situation i don't think this is the situation here the judge had given mr mccracken present for affirmative defenses that are naturally inconsistent with each other and you got to that he let mr johnson explain why this was not a good idea and i think you can tell that by october third whether you have a brief off the record or is that part of a defendant why it would be foolish to do certain things yes that is the the judge leighton's fred inquiry would have would be you don't know the rules of evidence are not a trained lawyer your government is not going to help you i cannot help you those sorts of comments were touched upon but i think when it comes to the the right to separate representation this was never mr mccracken been asked to go pro se and i think given the fact that there are three counsel starts with his complaints about counsel johnson then it it morphs into can i have other representation i'm going to hire at how much time was spent it starts i think on the twenty eighth  all of that when you consider all of that there were two hearings there was the hearing on september twenty eighth two thousand and twelve and then there is a brief hearing the morning of trial on october third two thousand fourteen but then there are other hearings of touching on mr jot mr mccracken's right to counsel in may and june when john henry browne his first county council withdrew so those hearings because there's no comment that indicated he had a clear understanding i think certainly by september twenty eighth two thousand and twelve when he's making this argument and this argument this argument he understands why he had to withdraw and and i  johnson one present his inconsistent affirmative defenses and he was upset because the his trial date was coming and he and he was upset that he didn't that the evidence was probably the evidence was very good against him so court needed to do to direct the inquiry and again i think under this court's precedent the adequate this is not an adequate inquiry the court got to the heart of the problem and it was it was the problem this mccracken it had with other lawyers that he tried to say that he the twelve lawyers that he had contacted before he indicated he had the same problem john henry browne he had said the problem charles johnson he would have the problem with the next lawyer he wanted to present a number of the from he wanted to present for affirmative defenses to a method to me conspiracy obsession with  any retrievable great down in relationship and i think yes your honor and i think that mr johnson said that at first that they were getting along they were they got along with each other they were able to talk about those issues mr johnson heard the look this is your problem there's nothing wrong with your lawyer but if you you know i can't make you talk i can't make you come into the courtroom i can't make you do any of these things and if you do it this is what's going to happen to you and i mean you can do that can't you but that's not what happened here yes that's that's not what happened here that the court focused on the the problem here which was the idea of the multiple defenses and again the idea of representing himself was pointedly put to mr he was well actually i mean this is basically your point and it that there could be there there could have there could be a clear record in a case given mr mccracken that this was the best that anyone could ever do with him and that's what we're stuck with and the appellant's position is well even if mr mccracken is difficult or whatever you got to do better yes i mean isn't that sort of what we're to present for affirmative defenses is going to want new is going to want to retain his own counsel but he doesn't have the money is going to want to appoint another counsel but there's no reason to and he's going to want to indicate sort of touch and step back in touch and step back from the idea of himself but that is nothing again he doesn't get there he says no he says no counsel quoted the very end of the transcript on the september twenty eighth hearing and after the court says this is over makes his ruling then although mccracken reference for defenses what he really wanted was to have a lawyer that paid attention to him and his case and appreciated his concerns and his issues and what he thought was important going for looking at what turned out to be fourteen years imprisonment i think i would hope that you in the system would either have the ability to have a lawyer man nothing i never got my discovery he never came and visited me and when he did it was to talk about airplanes except for the day before the september twenty eighth killing less than a week before the commencement