and richard such for the appellant alan winters question this in this case is whether after the court it first held a hearing before the preliminary examination to determine the defendant's competence to stand trial it was required to hold another hearing during the trial when the defendants in gauge since this is our behavior huddling under the counsel table and sobbing our contention is that the court was required to hold such a hearing and that one incident of bizarre behavior may have been the event that could have triggered the holding of such a hearing but there was plenty of other evidence that had accumulated during the trial and by the time of the saturday trial which had not been before the court that previous health experts who examined him and justified at the trial there were two psychiatrists and two psychologists that he was mentally ill to one degree or another even the psychiatrist called by the prosecution who was at least convinced of  with the prior or previously available information given that he has this reaction to the testimony he's now in found huddled under the table in obvious  evidence that not been presented to the judge at the time of the original hearing that was presented to the trial judge that when that one thing happened when the defense was seen had linked him to the counsel table and sobbing and when that matter disturbed and then when the trial was presented to the trial judge a lot more evidence of defendants very bizarre behavior not only during the offense but in the days afterwards before he turned himself into the policeman was presented original competency hearing said nothing about those things and then the third group of facts that should have raised a doubt in the mind of the trial judge was the evidence that was presented there at the sanity phase of the trial if the defendant was still mentally the california court of appeals said that there wasn't any substantial evidence that raised a doubt about the defendant's competence at the time of trial because these psychiatric and psychological opinions that he was mentally ill back there was plenty of evidence that the defendant had been mentally ill for a number of years he was mentally ill the time of the offense he could take to be mentally ill for the year before he went to trial but of course mental illness is not the criterion here the great area where as to the held that there was other evidence in the record which did raise a doubt about the defendant's mental competence and so you were aware that where there is conflicting evidence the supreme court decisions require that the court hold a hearing wasn't known to the court in time to the original competency hearing but when after that original competency hearing some new evidence is presented to the court it raises a doubt about the defendant's confidence in the court should conduct conduct a hearing in this case almost all the evidence was due to the original hearing the court had only the one one report of the one doctor that didn't go into the facts of the case didn't didn't wasn't nearly as strong evidence as was presented at the trial of of the seriousness of the defendant's mental illness that judge wasn't aware of of episodes of bizarre behavior in the courtroom the huddling in sobbing under the table the finish scratching himself until he was bleeding things like that or the very bizarre facts of the case those facts were presented to that original judge all of it only did they come out during the trial  another probably the most important category of factors here are the what wasn't known at all to the judge the original hearing did come out during the trial was that the defendant had been and continue to be jail mental health treatment specialist his name is margaret blushed she said that in the months after september one thousand nine hundred five there would have been a year before the trial the defendant was on a couple of antidepressants hands an anti  and reasonable under the deference standard that the court is required to apply all of the relevant factors including the circumstances of the emotional reaction itself support that conclusion that a second competency hearing w not required now the emotional reaction occurred during a recess at the trial and it was when the victim had taken the stand and was just about to go into the difficult testimony about what the defendant had done to her and was about to incriminate him with this very damaging testimony she became upset so at that point during the recess the defendant got upset himself his attorney found him under the table crying but the attorney indicated that the defendant was able to compose himself within that five minute period before court started and the attorney said expressly that he did not think the court needed to conduct  which is the california penal code section for competency hearings so the attorney was convinced that the defendant could still assist him at trial and in fact the defendant testified at his sanity face for two  incident on the record but said he didn't need any further competency hearing and clearly was reasonable for the trial court to take into consideration in addition he had expressly been found competent previously by the doctor who evaluated him for that purpose and he the defendant indicated that he had read the police reports he understood what the charges against him were he knew what the prosecutor's job was he knew he was pursuing a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity he knew what the court's job was those are the the requirements for confidence to stand trial and it's a it's a low level it's not some difficult achievement to to be confident you simply have to understand what's going on and clearly in this case the defendant was able to as exhibited by his his behavior throughout the entire trial  there there was evidence that he was mentally disordered and the prosecutor never disputed that and this is the trial court knew of course that he was pursuing a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity but none of those psychiatric diagnoses were ever linked to an inability to understand what was going on at the trial and those two are not the same the supreme court has held that you can have a mental disorder or a mental problem that is relevant to different legal issues and in this case it was relevant possibly to his insanity plea it didn't show any reason why he couldn't understand the proceedings and there was no expert testimony ever suggesting suggesting  that on the medication issue i think the early appellant has actually conceded that in this particular case if he were not taking medication he would probably not be competent to stand trial and if he were not taking medication or might have had some reason to doubt his competence the defendant testified that he was getting various medications he didn't know any of the names of what he was currently taking except for prozac but he said it improved his mood and there was evidence in the record that he felt anxious when court appearances were coming the the doctors made sure he was on this case is totally different because the trial court had all this information in front of it indicating that the defendant was currently competent and was assisting his counsel and participating fully in the proceedings and so for all of those reasons it wasn't objective leon reasonable for the state court to reach that conclusion that a second competency hearing was not required you agree that that controlled well i think drop is probably the circumstances circumstances suggesting a change that would render the accused unable to meet the standards of confidence to stand trial so i mean that's just a general statement that it can occur at various times in the trial and that a competency depression and self defeating behavior and the main factor being on medication medication in the morning and case was high blood pressure medication anti seizure medication and one and i anxiety drug here the defend that the medication that defender was under undergoing during his trial but also the effect of the interaction of the two different types of medications that he was taking