medical opinion on the competency to stand trial there is no doubt in this region that exhibited irrational behavior he believed that he was under surveillance by local state and federal authorities he honestly believed that he had an and regardless of the proof against the defendant the defendant is entitled to a fair trial that is free from the improper and prejudicial comments on the part oh look most of the comments the trial judge made were situations where  the defendant was questioning a witness and instead of asking questions he was making a speech which all of us have seen happen by post say people lots of times they just don't understand that would you agree with that that was the main thing case the remarks made in front of the jury have more of an impact because those remarks were actually made that have been himself the one on trial not to defense counsel this makes it even mor to the court at the beginning of the second day of trial that he felt comfortable with the comments that were being made and the court said that the comments were necessary to keep the trial running  stated to the judge was based on email correspondence that our offices had to depend we believe that there is a bonafide doubt as to his ability into the system his own defen these statements about e mails that were never present so the court based on that cannot have abused his discretion that wouldn't have been that that wouldn't rise to the level of an abuse of discretion  a or the defendant mentions was not tender to the court at this hearing in fact it was given to the state in response to a discovery motion and nap and it was filed in the what kind of state of mind he was in and all that this is concerned with is whether he is able to understand the nature and the purpose of the proceedings against him and to assist in his defense and nothing that he said suggested that he could not do any of those things although his defense was probably not the most persuasive defense but trial that only comments made by a judge to a defendant only constitute reversible error when the comments constitute a material factor in the conviction or such that an effect on but i have i assume that it's usually the defense motion for a broom so i think the state was just being overly cautious exercising it abundant abundance of caution especially given the fact that he was a pro se defendant the state didn't want to hear that they were just you know our party because the fact that he was going to be presenting a defense that was going to be very persuasive to which are on so i think that they were concerned about about it coming up on deal but of course it was it was within the judge's discretion to i would i would i would argue that that that that first of all that reporting on abuses discretion and and secondly it had they could observe the defendant and he could listen to the arguments more and get the defendants on a fitness examination but i don't i don't think our or the record shows that such a business examination wasn't necessary i'm we're talking about are these are challenges that you don't often see per se defendants made some you know he he was he was more than able to assist in his own defense  that's not something that you hear very often especially from somebody that's a rational person mr chairman also public people were constantly following him that these federal authorities had an interest in him who actually only purchased it into the green crack cocaine and this was his first ideal ings with a drug crime there was never any indication that he sold drugs was involved with you know much they all had drugs and then he