core is not going to even acknowledge should require just not then i read the court you never formally say i'm not going to allow you to represent yourself he just kept making the request and the court never knows you never gave him admonishments he's supposed to be allowed to represent himself and i think the thing here that's important is one of the reasons why mr morris wanted to represent himself he believed he  that at several hearings and i believe in the motions that's what the defense that he wanted presented his attorney would not and his attorney on the record said that in fact i believe now of that was a recollection from the record  scenario but again you have a defendant over the course of over two months has made repeated requests orally and in writing that he wants represent himself and the court doesn't even acknowledge it and they come back and they say ok well i i want to go for the counsel for the case the next time they do they speak with the court and in those cases sometimes of course found them then that was not only is it in trigger the right to sel being damned if you do damned if you know he's got a defense he wants to present his lawyer won't resign and his lawyer says on the record i don't think it's a valid defense to raise so mr morris is saying i could represent myself and attempt to raise th defense and i think the argument shows or continue to be represented by my counsel who's not going to raises the fines and wants his lawyer to represent himself was taken away from he can't raise the funds because now he's got a so he yes he does not make any requests after the july st but i don't think that not making a request after that after such on a big us on equivocal clear before that i guess cancels out the error and i guess the thought it was there is if the result of life from a from a film of the rule that we follow ts and yet it doesn't trigger will for one it doesn't allow will for him to represent himself and at some point yes he doesn't make any further request but the court gave no indication that it fact i don't think it would be something new for this this court because i think the rule is already established clear on equivocal on th to go pros i i'm not saying that that's and stop right there in the court necessarily to say ok for one and i think a court at that hearing can go into some question with a defined so that they even be armed for want to see if they understand everything that's going on or why this person is making this request navy to something that can be worked out with a trial counsel and there's definitely a case where that point someone equivocates that and this that this court other courts found the the defendant in the court before i don't i can't say what would be the i don't think there would be or should be a hard and fast rule on that but i think it should have occurred here in may th at some point and it definitely should have  be interesting at the end of counsel's argument was a statement about the answer your question about the effect of well it's not so much that just because of the fact that the take and try to ferret out ok you're coming in here now and you're asking to to go pro se why why is that you want to go to say have a discussion and if it i fact that the defendant one of the medical records to do the intervening causation defense what's he going to do ok he's going to take a question of things good luck this is what you wanted this is what we're trying to give you give your lawyer a chance to do speaking it's not so much that the trial judge is basically saying hey i think it's a bad idea my idea is better than yours isn't doing that he's just simply trying to make sure to accommodate the defendant come to his defense and give the defendant the opportunity to present a potential defense if it was possible and so in this case the trial judge i think acted properly the defendant clearly acquiesced in every one of the hearings acquiesced to what was going on and i don't think the trial judge committed any error in of put the cart before the horse here because normally what i would do is i was speak about procedural matters for earth and in this case two procedural matters and one of his deputy brought up when i think it was kind of infer the st one is i would say that that would be when i say within the course this question to take a look at i think you would i think it bolsters because what you're trying what you're trying to do at this point is you're trying to decide whether or not the defendant has made ever again that's what point is the law and the rule if i if i'm to make a request and i think you're getting the facts of this is that the the court just really here i guess the question would be is how many constitutional errors or how grave of a constitutional error would we require it is not we've been guilty we could reverse the scenario represented by counsel or what if a person wants to testify because it's the only way they're going to get their defense on in the court denies the right to testify again would we hope to ever see that not all but if a clear constitutional aaron a person does want to salvage something out of the situation and plead guilty throw myself upon the mercy of the court because i know if i proceed to trial i'm going to lose does a guilty plea waive that constitutional ire and i think what i have and my new brief and justice is of a different recollection of the record from the august th hearing mr morris so his counsel says mr morse wants to address the core i believe that mr morris would be comfortable proceeding with the representation that is with attorneys one or two attorneys representing him at his trial which is terms of september in the course of this ok do you have any would you like to fill me in on anything mr mor