elation the just judge morrow just failed to ask the questions and so would have to go back without any showing a prejudice on your part you have to show you have don't have to make any showing that there will be a or in our might have affected his cognitive prophecies knowing don't you have to come forward you have to come forward with some showing here that that is his condition was such that that we have reason to suspect it was not voluntary or that it's a combination of these medications is very likely to impair somebodies judgment schizophrenia and bipolar disorder but i didn't see in your briefing that you argued that or that mr carter argued that his plea was involuntary or unknowing i didn't actually see him making contact with them that's correct and she determined that after giving him the appropriate warnings that he was confident to represent himself yes ok so she's had prior experience with this defense she's seen him before she's talked with him before that's correct ok now do we get to do we get to cut the judge any slack here off of the fact that she has had dealings with him before and that in this in this colloquy that he that he has some discussion with her he greets her she comes into the into the courtroom he answers or questions yes ma'am i mean we have we have no way of judging off this transcript whether he's drooling or whether he's standing a very alert and appears to be completely attentive and engaged in this in th high blood pressure four months later is taking is being treated for a mental illness taking some very serious by psychotic medications that signals to the court that he something has changed something is different this is something i need to explore just to ensure that this man is fully functioning understands what's going on here before i take this please just something that's going to suddenly prison for fifteen years so it's not very much to ask that when someone says we're judged i'm being treated for mental illness and i'm taking pills soon and  while i was taking serach well and well buter and i my my judgment was impaired in the following ways i spaced things like that and i don't believe that i was but i would have pled guilty if i had been on these a hearing on whether those were defective though so we can have that evidence so we know whether that's are well affected impaired just thinking at the time there's certainly nothing on this record that indicates that he was fully not understand what was occurring at the time it did on twenty two fifty five then he would have to come forward with a method of this rather than rather than just saying that i should judge more than ask me a follow up question so you said that the do the disturbers a duty to ensure the record so with the follow up questions for our benefit but suppose i was just more i was completely satisfied she can see the guy she had dealings with him before he's answering your questions clearly distinctly just hypothesize that she has a duty then to create a record in the records to be created for us all for our benefit of the records for her as well to but if she's completely satisfied but she has an inadequate base to be schizophrenia we don't know because the record doesn't tell us because the judge did not follow up on that red flag and for that reason the firm record can insurance please no involuntary and we  that that there is sufficient record to reflect that those requirements have been met there's a big there's a basis for that determination so the question before the court is whether the colonies to fish in the context of everything in the record to conclude the defendant understood the consequence of this we hear this court has ruled and came of this that the that the determination should take into account the record of the hearing  the court asked when she asked what medication or taking the defendant cellphone curates cell of sarah palin other depression pills or some depression pills so i think the inference of the record is that when it understood he was being treated for depression  a common condition is often that commonly treated for with drugs or conflicts crime but the court did not stop there the court asked three more follow up questions before getting it's standard rule which is a question designed to get to exactly the issue at hand whether he had an understanding of the things he replied yes ma'am and the court as an open ended question at that point what are you here to do  being guilty so the court did directly address the defendant but still defending organs of the culprit was not sufficient because the exact question about the effect of the medication was inadequate that's the problem with some of these medications or what some of the diseases for which these for which these medications are prescribed is that sometimes these are self disguising diseases if somebody is livvy the example of somebody suffering from alzheimer's you don't ask of a if they're if they're aware of what's going on and answer yes that is you can't be have any degree of confidence that the that the answer is as valid as possible and that's why the question should be directed at the defendant's state of mind whether he is thinking clearly a medication so that the question was followed up with the rule of involved which consisted of i counted approximately fifty questions designed to determine if the defendant understood the proceedings the court asked about the ejecta cation his understanding of his rights we call up with his face i would argue on speculation that this the manager was affected in some way in other words if the defendant didn't understand the consequences of this plea he was somehow the opportunity to to use the defendant to see if there's any hesitancy in his answers see if there's any confusion on face the record doesn't show any of those things there's no policy proceedings there's no indication that this defendant  t to clarify questions before answering what we got were questions that indicated to the core connected to this court that this defendant intended to plead guilty understood that that was what he was doing and questions as they come to mind but does the fact that he did the judge moral then also saw him in a sentencing proceeding and have any effect upon this and would have seen a pre sentence report to presumably discuss his mental health issues  filings granted some of them the appointed investigator for him for example do you provide you some assurance that if there had been a serious problem presented p s r as to his mental ours like christianson you know that there wasn't much of a record in christian thought and we we simply imposed a pretty pretty absolute duty on district courts to make that same court if there's any reason to suspect that there's a mental illness that's right in all the cases  cases cited by defendant where there was inadequate inquiry they all lack one thing and that is the direct question the defendant that goes to whether or not that medication is affecting his ability to understand the proceedings that is present here as you can look at every single one of those cases in other cases there was an attempted suicide israel's oppression in other cases there was the drugs taken were not coming depression pills they were cocaine and heroin the night before those raise red flags now i'm not saying that it's an absolute that there's any absolute number of questions that need to be asked i'm saying that under the totality the circumstances of this court must make evaluation and these facts where the cause was smooth