first mr smith go was removed from court before the trial had concluded germany will do we know that i mean it seems to me what we have here is a dispute of fact about whether it was before or not because if you look at his statement he indicates it's before but then if you look at the district court's july eighteenth two thousand and thirteen memo basically he says it's after after the closing arguments and the jury was sent to delivery the court directed that he be transported back and that's correct judge would be the distinction there though is that the trial is not over until the jury is discharged are you saying that it i just want to get your position clear because if you're saying that it's impermissible to send somebody whether it's rushville or for that matter whether it's and you know the prison to send them back while the jury is deliberating it seems to be what verse or said first or said you know if you send them back you know maybe you can create a different line of communication you can put them in the video room where you can you know at least have an open phone line or you can do things because when the jury goes back you have no idea if the jury's going to deliberate for an hour or three days or something in between that's correct your honor and mr smeaton points to two distinct errors the first error is that he was removed from court before  the decision not to paul the jury doesn't state present for the charging instructions judge i don't think there's any dispute that if mr smith go was removed before the jury received the case on the facts of this case that would mean before the jury was charged although this wasn't a focus of either party's briefing when one looks at the transcript the jury came back in after a break and at that point they did receive the instructions and so doing the record as a whole the only way to interpret mr smith goes motion is that he was seeking confirmation that he was removed before the jury was charged ok well thank you for that and thank you judge or of near it but this this issue this distinction no lawyer and i'm going to make two points here here we have the university of illinois clinic students who were admitted to practice pursuant to a court rule and you argue although i have trouble finding where this is evident one way or the other on the record that they were completely unsupervised now there there may have been a professor in the courtroom or there may not have been or available by fall and so so i don't know where we have a record that they were just out there winging it and maybe that's a problem maybe not but where's the record will chief judge would i can take those  clinic and the students that's quite great quite correctly judge would but the question is what did mr smith go sign up for the relationship between a counsel and a represented party is not a relationship between a master and a servant to the contrary the historic roots of the right to counsel is of an able person unable representatives stands beside you and subject to correction from the party makes arguments and makes representations to the court that this is a civil trial it's possible to go california the council is an appendage of the natural right of self representation in this case the right that's actually codified so when the district judge summarily decided with no reason whatsoever and i think that aspect is critical to remove mr smith go from the courtroom the district judge made the choice to fundamentally alter what mr smith who had signed up for at the point that the district judge expelled mr smith go from the court room and again for no reason whatsoever that can be discerned from the record the only thing we can say for certain about the decision of whether or not to poll the jury is that it was not mr smith goes and the counsel who were in the room or the representatives were in the who were in the room we're not representatives that mr smee go had author our how far do you take that any time a lawyer is in a civil case in the court room and doesn't you know pick up the phone and chat with the client that lawyers decisions whether it's to object to evidence or whether it's to see if the jury should be litigant is asked to leave the court room you're saying that the lawyer somehow ceases to be the litigants agent and i don't know where that rule of law can be found i think it can be history of the right to counsel as it you know crossed the atlantic and looks at early founding constitutions as well within that within the original colonies and finds that in both the civil context and the criminal context there is a right to s representation that could not be supplanted by representation being imposed of it but you can't do both at the same time and mr sneed go ahead consented to counsel there was a little bit of an exchange actually the judge wasn't sure  becomes quite clear he wants counsel and he gets it that's correct your honor he did consent to counsel but the question is what did you consent to mr smith goes position is that he consented to that background relationship where he is in the court room and he was able to correct wait on the half of his client the right to hold the jury as a general principle of law your honor that is not mr smith goes position mr smith goes position is that if counsel were in the courtroom with a party and the question were posed does the does the party wish to poll the jury if the answer were in the negative party would be bound by that statement  indication that he was able to communicate with his counsel and that's important because in pages eight ten and fourteen of the transcript i believe the short appendix rather you can see on the docket where m was able to communicate with the court only through video routes or telephonic routes that issued in addition rushville is about two and a half hours away from urbana where the trial was held and so if the jury went out at one o six and came back in at three thirty then mr smith go would have been still on route back to rushville at the time when the verdict came in all right thank you i'll give you  good morning mr fein started his argument by point out that there are two questions in this case an assisted a trial on all issues a new trial on all issues i think the import thing here is that the professor i mean when when lawsuits argue in this court the supervising attorney normally a clinical professor or somebody of that sort is right here in the court room and leaving the students alone and actually they file appearances they do all sorts of things so having students treated exactly the same as lawyers is a bit of an extension you know i wonder well what if his mother had been in the courtroom you know maybe would that be ok too because somebody would have popped up and said a word in his behalf and the second thing that's very troublesome even though i understand this is a civil trial not a criminal trial is the notion that the court can throw a litigant out of the courtroom for no reason whatsoever there's no indication mr smee go was misbehaving there's no indication of any other reason the court doesn't say well you know the rush guards are about to go off there they are there shifter i mean anything there's there's nothing and i feel as though in a world where we have open courts and we're litigants are entitled to bring their cases to those courts to but you're not going to be here is is not consistent with that norm i think in this case if i could start with the comment about removing the litigant in this case again i come back to the point that the counsel couns district illinois of annoy is it permissible to have unsupervised lawsuits handling trials i have no comment on that your honor i don't think there's any evidence in this case of these were supervised i think what we have here well there's  i don't i think that's correct i don't that there were that i think it's clear i think that is correct from the status of this record but you know this is an interesting show you if you don't want to answer that question that i suppose it's possible to figure it out on my own that you don't know whether the central district of illinois unsupervised law students are entitled to handle a trial your honor i have no idea how they how they conduct the general trials but the the stat the rule that they operate under eighty three point five requires that it says supervision and direction doesn't define what that supervision and direction is my problem with where the argument is being praised here by my opponent contending that there is a lack of supervision in this case this is nothing was raised at the time party is the one who supplied to make the objection if it's the admission of evidence as in your hypothetical of course it's the lawyer on the other side who should we expect lawyers to do that and we the consequences are as you described that when it's when it's really something that's the the unrep the party that's where i get into the fact that actually governance at the bar is not the party's responsibility it's the court's responsibility and if if you turned out halfway through a trial you know a regular trial that the person representing us purportedly representing somebody had never been admitted to a bar and they'd lied on their admission form the court is the one that would take the action right i guess i don't see the supervision is changing anything here because if we remove this from the cantelli it would mean that is that was the case then we shouldn't have to have more years we can always have lost you that we have a procedure that allows for the use of lost in the certain circumstance and i think the court has recognized that that's a great benefit to the legal system into the prison system situation but they're not give they're not they don't have an independent standard of that applies to them on how they're supposed to operate i mean their counsel in the case and really if we remove just did they have to have a supervisor right and all we have here is speculation that we don't that's all we have we have our little bit more in that there is no appearance entered by any supervisor the point is if the student in the middle of the trial starts going off the rails if the supervisor is in the courtroom supervisor simply stands up and represents the client it's a joint representation in some sense you know that right here in the student that certainly could be but in this case i would i would bring the court back to what happened here the the judge after receiving the verdict asked the last june council do you want me to poll the jury and they said no yeah that's a mystery too because polling a ten person jury couldn't possibly  more than a minute and a half but we've got to pull in every case around and i can say there's cases i've been involved in where i've known all the jury and i've not asked my client to do it i've just said you know your honor because it comes from the context and that's what's so important about your verse or decision or when this court took a look at what happened and i think verse is interesting because we've kind of got a blend of stone and we've got a blend of the polling issue but i think the interesting part if i may have a second here when we look at page seven forty two and seven forty forty three this court makes a really interesting comment it says a reasonable party and again this is in verse or a reasonable party taking into account in the court goes through and lists all the things that you found to be troubling in that case says lie likely have requested a poll of the jury mr verse he was unable to observe or otherwise learn about these events because he wasn't there and this counsel wasn't there the distinction between that scenario in ours of course we have none of these inflaming counsel was there and they had an opportunity to look at what happened and they didn't see they didn't see a deadlock yury they didn't see a jury sending back questions we don't have the question issue but we didn't see the questions the uncertainty we didn't see the the problem was mr verse or wasn't there and his representative wasn't there no one was there to pick up on all of those cues that you found so important and say there might be a problem here in our case not only do we have someone there for mr sneed but we have none of these aggravating factors that would make any of us looking at a case kill something out right here i need to ask of the jury so verdict is representative of each of the members that's the difference between this case and verse are and that's why we think what happened here was proper and i think the court fully don't really understand that's troublesome about this case and he makes a comment about this is the judge's indication he people note respect if this is troubling ended the practice but does that mean that there is an error in this case it warrants a retrial no i don't think so because that the court is very clear that the mr spiegel was returned for the deliberations when the jury came back it was time to read the verdict nothing happened inflammatory management simply say nothing happened inflammatory as in verse or i think it's very clear that mr speaker was removed at that time if i may make one last com short counsel made a made a remark about the evidence in the case showing suggesting that mr sneed guilt was removed at the time of lunch but i would say this the judge specifically while he makes a specific finding as to when course is that the seventh circuit has authority to require district courts to follow sound practices from the standpoint of judicial administration and it is correct that the the central district of illinois has a rules that are unique among the districts in the circuit in that there is no clear requirement of supervision that we cite the rules in our brief and i'd be happy to discuss the now but the takeaway of course is that there are far more here your honor i think that the the harm this is the sort of case that falls into a category of cases where because the harm is particularly difficult to calculate a harmless error analysis is not appropriate  because when when litigants are represented by warriors who are representatives who are not adequately supervised it's difficult to quantify what the harm might have been in any specific case but in this case  it's likely that if a member of the bar was in court and saw the irregularity that took place in the record that the enemy him the irregularity is just a failure of a poll is that to pull a jury but that's that's another possible harm as well i see that i'm well over my right well thank you very much mr fine and we appreciate your taking the appointment from the court of great assistance to us and also to your client thanks as well to m will take the case hundred