crossing documents and he has an attorney and in unfortunately in those grossly documents he talks about events that creates a pretty big danger to let him determine that bad only applies when the evidence is not clear and can get back to a factual dependent determination that is what is and that is not a public interest exception to the goodness questions so in this you know is enough and this is not enough in terms of this particular hearing there's nothing absolutely nothing to show that the constitution has some facts available that it was not interested in bringing this idea that defendant's own wishes are a secondary because the defendant could be unfit so we rely on our officers of the court or the attorneys that are there to bring forward the evidence that they are there's no showing here that they he's he's got one expert witness the expert comes in and he's read the report he knows what it says he knows the questions he can ask and he also knows his own mom servatius in court he's telling the court and it certainly is not something that you know be able to carry its burden of proof to show that the defendant there was that why do you turn around counsel has suggested that it shows that they had no interest by the mere fact that they didn't ask their own questions but the court asked but he wasn't able to get the answers that allow for an understanding really up where he was going with this and you know what she didn't get in terms that personal history and other questions took her much longer than normal and at the end of that defen problem was he was not able to even with the redirection by a psychologist somebody who knew what she's doing he was not able to come back and didn't answer that it with extra time did and that actually answered him in the way that he thought was police were at the court to defend it it actually edited and down and doctored the the videotape of the incident on these types of indications show both the attorneys and the court advocate for his position now a hair and crown that do not apply and hope says that very clearly on they do not apply because there's different considerations they're there the idea is those styles take the position you know for all purposes and say if the evidence is clear as it was here then under holt you can educate against your client's interest and there are reasons that counsel maybe should have asked for an independent fide issue and given what was going on in court and then all of the types of things that were said that basically you know verified that from a doctor a mind that he believed that it would be helpful to  less that it would be a successful notion the safety net here for the defendant of course is to his client advocating or not indicating his position is that an ad that you know if it's nothing or this court can so find an the cult would not apply could hold says you know it's proper here meaning it's not proper if the evidence is not clear and under that situation hall to be on would apply to provide that safety net and in fa test that seems to be the issue and some of the things you advocate for possible things in the record that would certainly should've been considered would not necessarily have it isn't there somewhere in this record the actual text that were sent that could be looked at yes and counsel saw this in discovery i'm assuming or even from his own client of defense counsel it's in a i mean we're talking about a lot more we're talking about killing somebody that's i mean is a matter of law you don't if it's even going to be a trial so i mean it's kind of hard to figure out where in that circle as it goes this way