path same constitutional provision allows a defendant to waive counsel and to proceed pro se the only requirement is that you make it clear and unequivocal requires of his desire to represent himself these rulings by the judge constituted in the use of discretion in reversible error now on the morning of the first trial before opening statements and before any evidence was presented the defendant and it was then that the defendant learned for the first time that house would not be presenting the evidence that the defendant wanted to be presented to the judge asked counsel whether he was ready to that he had not interviewed the defendant's witness however based on what he knew about the case and based on what the defendant told him about those witnesses counsel did not believe these witnesses would give testimony that would be either relevant or was a deliberate appears simply that there was an honest dispute in the family it was now bringing into the judge's attention the judge of course can also consider and whether or not to grant a continual whether there might be prejudice to the perhaps if the defendant would have been allowed the jump in the middle of the trial it might have somehow interfered with defense counsel spread the consul testified here a post from here that the defense he presented was one of reasonable doubt and he explained what he meant by that was simply cross examining prosecution witnesses that something were possible to pull holes in their testimony attempting were possible to show some minor  have damaged his case or interfered with strategy here or would have really made a difference because this is one of those rare circumstances where the defendant really has no burden to show  supreme court decision that i cited in the reply united states supreme court candidly observed that word defendant invokes is right to self representation in all likelihood the outcome of the trial is not going to be a positive one for the defendant but the important thing is his right to choose whether he wants counsel or whether he wants to present his case in his own way without counsel and there is no off with counsel but the fact remains it's his choice and now i think it's borders it might be pounds of view the right to wave counsel and proceed pro se as something of what those witnesses would say because the people had to be to the witnesses and the they were there at trial and at the end of people's case the court took a recess so that france counsel could interview them and then he came back and made a record an attorney who conducted himself the way this one did would you feel you had a fair trial and you judging this at the end of the trial or i'm judging it anywhere you want to go to and i had not given  never really wanted to represent himself room and say well look like there's much there and then here's a needy council need a wise decision not wanting to call them but in the end and this particular issue it doesn't matter because again the burden is  attorney and when this issue self representation was raised at that point judge asked counsel what's the prejudice that he was not allowed to represent of those trials will said the prejudice was that he was not able to get our say that it's the defendant who must be free personally to decide whether in the use particular case house was to his advantage and although he may conduct his own defense ultimately to his own doctrine and his