right to be present namely that a defendant may be removed from his trial when his conduct is so disruptive as to make the impossible or very difficult to proceed with him in the court room in other words that it must be directly connected to the disruptive effect of his presence on the court further held that even a after a single brief verbal outbursts and never permitted to return despite assuring the court i have times throughout the rest of the trial that he was ready to conduct himself properly as a result unwillingly absent for important prosecution testimony summations jury charge answers to the jury notes which were quite important in this case and the rendering of the verdict he wasn't even allowed to follow  proceedings from another room no the state court held that mr page had voluntarily and permanently waived his right to be present based on the single outburst plus a so called pattern  disruption which refers to incidents having no connection to whether the child could proceed with him in the court room that was an unreasonable application of alan st it extends its narrowly tailor definition of disruption and nd it raises the threshold for readmittance to the court  it does not say anything about what he would have done if he had been readmitted when he promised to be his none of his prior conduct which consisted of been produced  late was it was disruptive within the meaning of alan and i submitted didn't even really show that he was trying to disturb the trial if you compare it to allan itself who saying mr allen saying there's not going to be no trial this disruption five promises this undeniably this is critical stages of trial that he missed i would submit that it is agreed just you won't find another case with this extreme deprivation based on a single outburst secondly i don't know alternatively i would say that prejudice has been shown here this was not an open and shut case it was a very contentious jury deliberation the evidence came solely from purported accomplice who was impeached over and over on the witness stand he was testifying acquitted himself had been indicted for this murder he was offered for twelve that the defense was that he was fingering mr page to protect someone else in fact this man had had written a letter to that effect i think mr page's absence you know unexplained absence would have tipped the scale in the jury's mind because st the last time they saw him was being taken away in handcuffs after this outburst they never saw him  again what could they conclude besides that either he was so dangerous that he couldn't be readmitted or that that he had just given up trying to defend himself because he was still guilty there was of course  answer so so where's the line i guess the difficulty i'm having is you know that there is very sick and you know you can discount things that happen out of the courtroom or you know what his attention was and you know going to get a nd set of getting on the bus but it it seems hard for me to see where the line is between one destruction or or two and it certainly doesn't promises allen doesn't say how many times that has to happen but certainly at least once i mean there's no way under alan that you can be prevent rejected after a single disruption of defendant's claims that the trial court erred in removing him from the courtroom based on his conduct and not readmitting him what was not contrary to and did not have all been an unreasonable application clearly established federal law nor is there any to reenter he wasn't even at the court house yet because he delayed his his production that day also when he was brought back in to the courtroom after he claimed that he wanted to to testify he he could at that point have apologized and he he he he chose not court's free fusil to allow him to watched the trial in a separate room it's that that would certainly have been one way to handle it but alan trial judges broader disc and how they handle these things and certainly there's no it's supreme court precedent that requires that sort of remedy i'm saying that there were a lot of options available to the trial court and walls to that would certainly have been an option and it's an option that other judges have there would have to be a a a determination that the that the state courts determination violated s car precedent and there just isn't that in this case one of the facts here is that it's all happened sort of late right i mean it's basically the st is the day before the government state rests and the the theater prosecution rested that day and then on the th day is when the defendant claimed that he wanted to every witness who who testified to to the defendant's participation in the crime had you know had already testified  and as a court i'm sure knows that was after the defendant had the latest trial on the nd day and also on the th day and was warned every time as well as the pretrial warnings that if he continued to delay his trial he could be found to have waived his right defendant is capable of consistently come porting himself with the respect and and decorum that's required and the other time he was brought in to the courtroom after he was found to have waived his right to to to be present he engaged in this confirms the determinations that the trial court made based on both the the defendant's explicit conduct and as the court explained his his body language and his his demeanor in the courtroom that i found that the defendant had waived his right to be there the defense counsel said i understand your ruling and while the the the defendant later tried to i splaying not he thought that he could still get a haircut and arrive at court in time the the trial court was not yes your honor just very briefly the supreme court holds does make a requirement to because on the basis of a promise no strings attached this produced late is not disruption under alan and you know just the last word about the haircut there it has to be shown that getting a haircut makes you a fair trial arresting officer half of this and the entire testimony of the lead detective who gave you know who connected him to the crime through the phone through the motivation to the end he described this is an extreme else function a man sitting in a courtroom courthouse begging to be readmitted to his trial if the state if the evidence is so overwhelming then let them convict him after a