again so the only thing i'm representing myself because that's the only available option which you know it was the only way to get this attorney off my case the question is is this an equivocal forever request it's our contention that a conditional one but expressly conditional generally speaking for the defendants are divided into two groups the unconventional threat a defendant that is somebody who wants to represent himself no matter who might be as attorney have on their case in most cases the conditional thread status is not expressly discussed during a court hearing it's just understood inferentially because this person has asked for counsel to substitute  it's been denied now they're asking to represent themselves and you know that the reason that they're doing this is because this is the only way they can get rid of the thing that makes this case different is the expressed we asked if that's what you want so it's sort of  another attorney i'm a conditional for the defendants but the trial judge is under here restriction can't just green he's got to carry on a full hearing with the defendant to make sure that's what they really want we've instructed them in all states of instructed them because they are unaware of the pitfalls are you saying it was improper for the trial judge to carry on such a discussion with you you know i'm not saying that it's improper to ask about but the judge said was not you really want to represent yourself because she was clear that that's what she really wanted the judge said is that what you really want to suffer presentation as opposed to all of the things that might be available and she was saying no i really wanted another tourn light of that that precise point the court reversed for for air but about mccaskill there you had a similar problem where the standby counsel really interfered with the defendant's approach to representing himself or herself and the court said it was harmless in that case because and that's of her of the defense case was presented to the jury by the defendant but you know it was done the way the defendant wanted which i pretrial motion for a new point of counsel during the discussion the trial court the defendant indicated he would go pro se if his motion subsequent was tonight and indicated he's not very serious about wanting to represent himself but will do so rather than having  and in the very beginning when the court's discussing this request the court says the just established for i don't want to represent himself and did not want another lawyer and that's a page eight only so the idea that determination and that's the standard of review another point i'd like to make in looking at the information of the trial court had at the time of this request miss phillips it made two unsuccessful represent yourself and then mr phillips replied i understand that but i will half and type of its existence and then of course as well and you don't want to make a friend emotion i don't know what you want then and then she says i would like to have some assistance the time but if she really wants to represent herself and she can't have any help no she of course she can have help but i think that the point is when you're looking at the totality of the circumstances here unfortunately we're not in a position to judge  way she made the request or demeanor and one of our arguments is that it very well could have been made out of frustration and the trial court was in the very best position when she was talking about it pfizer the counsel to judge how insistent she was upon wanting that type of assistance and just maybe the level of frustration that she had when she was talking about not having a choice and if you look at the later colloquy between phillips and the court she is always going back to the marston most and it's always goes back to new counsel and in fact this threat of motion after it was denied without prejudice in court said you can do this at any time which she did not was the argument be the other way i'm sure that petitioners counsel would stand up here and say that court could now should not have actually granted the motion it was clear from the record that what she really wanted was a new attorney and that it should have been granted so the arguments are perhaps equally strong probably more strong against the fact that the court should have not or the court should and they didn't counsel i believe what happened in that one status conference between mr schwartz and you counsel was that all parties that stipulate that there are actually three other defendants in this case the parties court of appeal that petitioners request was equivocal was objective leon reasonable and that's exactly where this case comes down to zero it may be a close call but ultimately given the constraints of deference to the state court this court should few quick points counsel argued that thread a not of a conditional case actually advanced it's a case in which the defendant said that he did not want to be represented by public defender that he tried all sorts of different ways to get away from that self representation