the very serious corruptions of the trial process tonight mister galvez his right to a fair trial and made the verdict unreliable st the court forced him to decide whether to defense witnesses and here mister galvez was forced as in the middle of the prosecution's case so we have an even stronger case here than the leading supreme court case of brooks this error requires automatic reversal groups reversed without inducting any harmless error analysis and subsequent supreme court cases every affirmed that gross error requires per se reversal a court that's forcing the defendant in appropriately to make that decision prematurely effect is exactly the same and here we have an even stronger case than the leading groups case because mister gubb is required to testify after hearing me half of the prosecution's evidence it's absolutely true that a defendant can be required to defend against evidence that he hasn't yet heard so we have a very strong case you're squarely within  jury's evaluation of the evidence was notably influenced by mr galbreath being forced to make a premature decision to testify because it may well have been his presentation on the stand because the jury to doubt him as the group's case points out that defense decision for the defendant whether testifies one of the most critical defense decisions there is and it's a risky one because a skilled prosecutor as rove says can make even a truthful defendant look like a li with a with a firearm in heart it's very easy for that to have you know just offense for his own presentation on the stand to what color the jury against him and he may not have made that decision testify if he in counsel had been able to as groups requires conduct a full survey of all the evidence and least of all the prosecution's evidence but also he had yet to have his defense witness testify they could have determined that he didn't testify if that were the at that point in the case after hearing only one witness and being forced to decide whether to testify then or not at all he said he wanted to testify no question about that but he wasn't supposed to have had to minute to address the nd point insanity is a unique concept in california law it's in a class of it's own it's sometimes described as operating in a sense like an affirmative defense but as the lea case fernandez points out that's not accurate it's actually a special pleader the defendant is not guilty of committing a crime because he's incapable in law of committing a crime and that's why falls squarely under the clearly established federal having the mental state necessary to be guilty of crimes and i would point out that as to the substantial evidence standard if the court does reach that the things that the state court found we in mister  were things that the prosecutor should have been arguing to the jury in closing argument this was not conflicts and the evidence discussions about the weight of the evidence the credibility of witnesses these are all for the jury to me not the court limited holding of brooks and the broad discretion of trial courts in managing their own trial their own their own trials for this reason this court should follow her and find that the trop court did not abuse its discretion but even if this court finds that that that the court did  error in this case was not structural broxton not fine the error structural in that case the government didn't argue harmless error it assumed there and therefore never reached the structure or question structure error affects the entire framework of  trials of a trial from from beginning to end it affects the integrity the fairness of the trial itself some examples of the structure or those like like the court bench and the complete deprivation of counsel an impartial judge the denial the public managing trials here that the defendant petitioner had had the opportunity to confer with counsel to you know to to actually evaluate the strength of the uses their discretion to manage their trial but i think you know the most straightforward way to resolve this case is the way the state court of appeal and the district court resolved it and that's even assuming there any are was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under the federal chapman or would not his testimony would not have changed regardless if you would have waited after the prosecution rested it is his defense in essence was you don't remember the pursuit so it did not dispute any of your offers to testimony he was in this case was overwhelming because both the both officers identified petitioner as the person who was driving they'd either heard or actually fire the shotgun out of his car and when he was stopped the physical evidence to corroborate their testimony a trial trial time that that that would have been wasted  order of i think it's going to depend on the case and that i'm not asking for a bright line rule you know who in this case it to starr was determined to testify he did get a chance to evaluate the prosecution's case he did get a chance to consult with his counsel and was able to make that decision i wouldn't say in every case that's going to be that's going to be the case i am not asking for a bright line rule i think it's going to depend on the her was a difference case in this court you know because both the state court because the state court assumed error in this case and never reached the question whether the trial court did have discretion to do that so that that question is d novo and in love for the state court actually reached that decision and found that to be reasonable so for that reason you know there is no deference to that to that question and this court would have to look at look at that a no vote but of course you know the harmless error standard was reached by or that decision was reached by the state court and this court does the st to that unless that decision was unreasonable and for the reasons i i talked about that decision was  the government had waived it because again a party can waive the great extent review and we do have subsequent supreme court cases making clear this is a constructive denial of counsel at a critical stage and proceeding court does talk about a reach recent question of harmless error it should apply a particularly exacting correct analysis here because this is even if the court finds the supreme court has declared it nonetheless the fact is the supreme court takes into account in finding there to be structural apply strongly here including that it eventually perverted the framework of this trial to require the defendant to testify in  exactly how the trial would have got and there's reason to believe that with regard to the strength of the prosecution's evidence you know the st officer testified that he didn't see a gunshot he only h credibility of testimony and so there was a reasonable doubt there is whether that shot was in fact at the police and we have the nd officer driving at one hundred miles an hour seeing something for only one second and the jury could have doubted that so it may well have been mister galvez is defense presentation you know it is anxiety disorders stuttering on the stand the prosecutor batting him around that actually pushed the jury into this telling it's reasonable doubt about this point