the guilty plea was vacated it will go back he will be presumed fit there is a possibility as there always is that he may be somebody may have a modified valve as to whether he's fit there may just not sure that the record here has enough in that to show that there is definitely a possible of recurrence in this particular case but as to the substantive issues the end of friday if i would i would like to address those and first i would like to address the same time except his his tender jury waiver as being an understandable understanding who made this argument has some surface appeal but we do not think it makes a tender jury waiver i know the team has defend of valuation came down and said that the defendant is not a fit first trial at this point that can be brought to fitness the court then said counsel i might have been i understand that the two of you were stipulating to whether or not to have a jury or a bench there's no reason to assume that there isn't a vacuum in the sense that if neither the defendant or the state makes a demand then maybe the judge has the opportunity to decide whether the judge wants a jury in similar to courts in equity where they use juries as triers of fact but don't necessarily give the jury the opportunity to exercise equity perspective that you suggested just for cash is there a case where the says there is a court and i can't answer this but i don't believe that there's anything in it requires does not care of the duty to grant the jury trial to someone who makes a statutory demand for it's not a jury trial it's a jury cool to turn his fitness and there's a difference between  nobody even testifies and they just said you know what we're going to follow their report we find this person fit to stand trial now you've got a constitutional obligation that this man can is not cannot be put on trial while he isn't titled as a matter of constitutional due process guarantees that he has a lawyer to a hearing on the issue of his business and the general assembly has said a in order to do what the hell it is claiming does it say he make a demand or on the third day of every month he they make it different what language you think is necessary  especially in this situation i do think that because this is only a statutory right and because it's written in the language doesn't obligate in the actors to proceed in any certain manner in this your time but demand is a demand which the essence of the demand is that it's going to be ordered when a person has a right to demand argue your position to an analogous situations where i've never her case or never read a case or a matter of fact heard an argument before that a defendant making a demand  that's not supported by the language in the statute which uses the word the manuscript he said that is your term mark and there is a difference between demand and request a demand is something that by definition has to be works frankly i forget exactly what context is this sense but one of the things that we as lawyers and everybody there in the justices ha the defendant the right to demand a jury and i think she's now trying to change her position so you have a controlling supreme court case this is true or even if it was obvious to everybody that aim was wrong