Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): challenges they can present to litigants, and that he understood that another lawyer’s perspective would be helpful in his defense. Thus, although defendant may not have been well-qualified to handle the task of criminal defense that he chose to undertake, he was eminently qualified by his back ground, training, and experience to make that choice with full knowledge of its consequences. ¶ 16. On appeal, defendant points to numerous errors and gaffes in his self-representation to suggest that his waiver was not truly knowing. But defendant’s own acknowledgment that he was not experienced enough to provide adequate self-representation, either before or after trial, does not invalidate his deliberate choice to proceed pro se. See Wiesner v. Abrams, 726 F. Supp. 912, 918 (E.D.N.Y. 1989) (<HOLDING>); Lewis, 155 Vt. at 655, 586 A.2d at 552 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires (B) recognizing that any witness has the right to refuse to be interviewed if he so desires and is not under or subject to legal process (C) recognizing a defendants constitutional right to be represented by counsel of his own choice (D) holding that even in cases where the accused is harming himself by insisting on conducting his own defense respect for individual autonomy requires that he be allowed to go to jail under his own banner if he so desires if he makes the choice with eyes open (E) holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live
Output (English): holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live