Court Opinion

ID: 9481150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:09:43.408651+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:07.879476
License: Public Domain

TJOFLAT, Chief Judge,
dissenting, in which JOHNSON, Circuit Judge, joins:
I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision today. That decision emphasizes that a defendant has a right to plead guilty, and to do so even against a lawyer’s advice. I agree. The majority, however, misses the point of this case: the petitioner pled guilty without the advice of counsel. The petitioner’s nominal lawyer failed to undertake even the most minimal inquiry necessary to constitute assistance of counsel. Of course, a defendant who has invoked his right to counsel still has the right to plead guilty without counsel, but before the court can accept his plea, the court must ensure that the defendant unequivocally asserts his right to proceed pro se and knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel. Absent such a waiver, the court has an obligation not to accept the plea until the defendant has assistance of counsel. In my view, the court in this case failed to discharge that obligation: it accepted the pleas of an uncounseled defendant without ensuring that the defendant clearly and unequivocally asserted his right to proceed pro se and knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Accordingly, the petitioner’s convictions must be set aside.
I.
In 1982, Gerald Eugene Stano confessed to the murders of Susan Bickrest and Mary Kathleen Muldoon. In early 1983, a Florida grand jury indicted him for both murders. On March 11, 1983, Stano, accompanied by his court-appointed attorney, Howard B. Pearl, pled guilty to both charges. After a brief exchange with Pearl and Sta-no, the trial judge accepted the guilty pleas. Three months later, the judge sentenced Stano to death in both cases.
The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the convictions and sentences on direct appeal, and the state courts denied Stano post-conviction relief. The district court also denied Stano’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On appeal, a panel of this court granted Stano relief. A majority of this court, however, voted to hear the ease en banc and the panel’s decision was vacated. The court today affirms the district court’s denial of relief.
The plea hearing now at issue commenced with an exchange between Mr. Pearl and the court that is crucial to the case before this court. In the course of this exchange, Mr. Pearl told the court that he had not yet received discovery from the State and therefore he could not give Stano any informed advice on how to plead. The exchange was as follows:
MR. PEARL: Before proceeding, Your Honor, as I have told Mr. Stano I would do, there are a couple of things I would like to inform the Court about in his presence that might appropriately be made a part of the plea dialogue.
At this time, Your Honor, I have not yet received full discovery from the state with respect to these cases and, therefore, am not prepared to say that I know all of the substantive facts concerning these two killings. The delay has been because much of the materials have not yet been received by the State and [the prosecutor] told me he would like to gather everything up at once and submit it to me rather than in installments. I agreed with that.
THE COURT: So, you’re not complaining, you’re just stating this for the record.
MR. PEARL: No, that is not a complaint. I’m just making my position clear in Mr. Stano’s presence about the entry of his plea; that is to say, that I am not fully prepared to advise him as to whether the State has sufficient evidence to convict him or not. He is convinced that they do.
*1156I have spoken with [the prosecutor], I have confidence, certainly, in his integrity and honesty, and he assures me that the State can independently establish the corpus delicti in both of these cases. And Mr. Stano tells me that is so.
Further, I have asked [Stano] about the admissions or confessions that he has made to Detective Paul Crow. And he assures me that those statements were made voluntarily, they were made competently, and intelligently after warning of his rights and that, therefore, there does not exist a good possibility that either of his admissions could be suppressed on a hearing.
He feels that he wants to go forward and enter this plea rather than go through a trial or even a delay at this time.
I have agreed that certainly he has the right to do so, but that he should know, and it should be on the record, that I am not fully prepared, at this time as his attorney to advise him with respect to the advisability of a trial or not.
He tells me he does not want a trial.
THE COURT: Okay.
Mr. Stano, do you care to comment on what Mr. Pearl has just said?
THE DEFENDANT: No. I believe everything was quite sufficient that he said.
THE COURT: He stated things accurately?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: You’re in agreement with what he said?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
(Emphasis added.)
In my view, this colloquy put the court on notice that Pearl could not provide his client with meaningful legal representation. As a result, the colloquy triggered a duty on the court’s part to intervene, either by determining that Stano wanted to waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se or by postponing the proceeding until Stano had meaningful representation. The court, however, did not intervene but instead accepted Stano’s pleas.1 In so doing, the court denied Stano the process he was due and thus violated his fundamental right to a fair proceeding. Accordingly, Stano’s convictions should be set aside.
II.
The sixth amendment to the United States Constitution provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have the Assistance of Counsel for his de-fence.” U.S. Const, amend. VI. The courts have long recognized that this right to counsel is fundamental to due process of law and is thus an essential component of a fair criminal prosecution. As Justice Sutherland wrote in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932):
The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction, because he does not know how to establish his innocence. If that be true of men of intelligence, how much more is it true of the ignorant and illiterate, or those of feeble intellect. If in any case, civil or criminal, a state or federal court *1157were arbitrarily to refuse to hear a party by counsel, employed by and appearing for him, it reasonably may not be doubted that such a refusal would be a denial of a hearing, and, therefore, of due process in the constitutional sense.
Id. at 68-69, 53 S.Ct. at 64 (emphasis added). Following these principles, the Supreme Court in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), held that the sixth amendment requires the government to provide counsel for a defendant in federal court unless he competently and intelligently waives his right to counsel. In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963), the Court held that the sixth amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial and to due process of law, and that it therefore applies to the states through incorporation into the fourteenth amendment.2 The right to assistance of counsel, moreover, attaches at all critical stages of the criminal justice system, and a plea hearing is such a stage.3 See United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967).
Thus, as the Court pronounced in Johnson — a pronouncement made applicable in Gideon to the state courts — “[t]he Sixth Amendment withholds from federal courts, in all criminal proceedings, the power and authority to deprive an accused of his life or liberty unless he has or waives the assistance of counsel.” 304 U.S. at 463, 58 S.Ct. at 1022-23 (footnote omitted). The Court explained the duties that this rule imposed on trial courts:
The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This :protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. While an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.
Id. at 465, 58 S.Ct. at 1023 (emphasis added). If a court allows a defendant to proceed at a critical stage without the assistance of counsel and without a competent waiver of the right to counsel, the court fails to discharge its “protecting duty” and allows a violation of the defendant’s sixth amendment right to assistance of counsel. See Gideon, 372 U.S. at 344-45, 83 S.Ct. at 796-97 (no counsel at trial); Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 37, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 2012, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972) (no counsel at trial for misdemeanor); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 60, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 1051, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963) (no counsel at arraignment); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 54-55, 82 S.Ct. 157, 159, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961) (same).
The Supreme Court has explained that, in such circumstances, the reviewing court must reverse the conviction without “stop[ping] to determine whether prejudice resulted.” White, 373 U.S. at 60, 83 S.Ct. at 1051. As the Supreme Court observed in United States v. Cronic, “[t]he Court has uniformly found constitutional error without any showing of prejudice when counsel was either totally absent, or prevented from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding.” 466 U.S. 648, 659 n. 25, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 2047 n. 25, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984) (citing Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976); Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975); Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, *1158612-13, 92 S.Ct. 1891, 1895, 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972); Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 55, 82 S.Ct. 157, 159, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961); White v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 59, 60, 83 S.Ct. 1050, 1051, 10 L.Ed.2d 193 (1963) (per curiam); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 81 S.Ct. 756, 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961); Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U.S. 471, 475-76, 65 S.Ct. 363, 366, 89 L.Ed. 398 (1945)); see also Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 278, 109 S.Ct. 594, 599, 102 L.Ed.2d 624 (1989); Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 86-89, 109 S.Ct. 346, 353-54, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988); Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 488, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1181, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978); cf. Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249, 256, 108 S.Ct. 1792, 1797, 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988). I discuss this presumption of prejudice in detail below.
The right to assistance of counsel, moreover, is “the right to the effective assistance of counsel.” McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. 1441, 1449 n. 14, 25 L.Ed.2d 763 (1970); see Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 377-78, 106 S.Ct. 2574, 2584, 91 L.Ed.2d 305 (1986). Assistance of counsel thus requires more than just the mere presence of an attorney. As the Court stated in Holloway, “[t]he mere physical presence of an attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee when the advocate’s conflicting obligations have effectively sealed his lips on crucial matters.” 435 U.S. at 490, 98 S.Ct. at 1181. In Cronic, the Court explained that “[i]f no actual ‘Assistance’ ‘for’ the accused’s ‘de-fence’ is provided, then the constitutional guarantee has been violated.” 466 U.S. at 654, 104 S.Ct. at 2044. At any critical stage, therefore, where it is apparent to the court that assistance of counsel is being actually or constructively denied, the court has a duty under the sixth amendment not to allow the defendant to proceed absent a valid waiver of his right to assistance of counsel. If the court does allow a defendant to proceed under such circumstances, without first obtaining a valid waiver, then prejudice must be presumed and the defendant’s conviction must be set aside.
Before turning to the case at hand, I pause to consider the notion that a trial court has a duty to intervene in some circumstances to protect a defendant’s constitutional rights. I then address the related notion that, if a trial court fails to discharge this duty, a reviewing court must presume that the defendant was prejudiced and set aside his conviction. After demonstrating that these notions are deeply rooted in a wide body of established precedent, and supported by the practical realities and limitations of collateral proceedings, I turn to a discussion of their application to the present case. I first explore the notion of trial judge error.
A. A Court’s Duty to Intervene.
When a trial judge receives notice of a circumstance or event implicating the fairness of a proceeding before the court, he assumes a responsibility to intervene in order to preserve the proceeding's fairness. If the trial judge fails to discharge this duty, then he becomes causally responsible for the error and its effects.
As a panel of this court explained in Willis v. Kemp, 838 F.2d 1510, 1519-20 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1059, 109 S.Ct. 1328, 103 L.Ed.2d 596 (1989), three categories of error exist: error caused by the trial court, error caused by an effective attorney’s reasonable tactical choices, and error caused by an attorney’s incompetence. In discussing a prosecutorial misconduct claim, the court stated:
When a habeas petitioner contends that a state prosecutor’s misconduct before the jury rendered his trial fundamentally unfair, he means that one of three scenarios took place. In the first scenario, petitioner’s attorney afforded the petitioner effective assistance of counsel, as required by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. When the prejudicial misconduct occurred, the attorney made a timely objection, asked the court for relief — either a curative instruction or a mistrial — and the court denied his request. In this scenario, the trial court, rather than the prosecutor, caused the unfair trial, although the prejudice would not have occurred but for the prosecutor’s misconduct. The petitioner’s claim is, then, that *1159the court ^denied him due process of law....
In the second scenario, petitioner’s attorney provided effective assistance of counsel, but did not object to the prosecutor’s misconduct, reasonably concluding that he could eliminate the prejudice as the trial progressed and that it was to his client’s advantage not to object. Defense counsel’s strategy failed, however, and the prejudice remained. In this scenario, the petitioner’s attorney, rather than the prosecutor or the court, caused the unfair trial. The petitioner has no constitutional claim in this situation: he received effective assistance of counsel and the court did not deny him a fair trial.
In the third scenario, the petitioner’s attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel and took no steps to eliminate the prejudice caused by the prosecutor’s misconduct. In this scenario, petitioner’s counsel, through his incompetence, caused the unfairness. The petitioner’s claim is not that he was denied due process, but that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the sixth and fourteenth amendments.
Id. (citations omitted; footnotes omitted).
The Willis court thus explained the kinds of errors that violate federal constitutional rights. Under the third scenario, if an attorney’s representation falls below acceptable levels of competence, that error implicates the defendant’s sixth amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel. Under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), the court, on collateral review, will grant relief if counsel’s performance was deficient and if the deficiency prejudiced the defendant.
Under the first Willis scenario, an occurrence during the course of a proceeding puts the trial court on notice of an error and triggers its duty to intervene. This duty to intervene is triggered in two general ways: either an attorney’s objection puts the court on notice of a potential for error; or circumstances themselves put the court on notice, thus triggering a duty on its part to intervene sua sponte. I consider these two possibilities in turn.
In a case involving prosecutorial misconduct, an objection by the defendant’s attorney puts the trial court on notice of the misconduct and triggers its duty to intervene. If prosecutorial misconduct has occurred, causing prejudice to the defendant, and the trial judge fails to intervene by issuing a curative instruction or by granting a mistrial, then the court assumes responsibility for the error and a violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial under the due process clause occurs.
As courts have recognized, an attorney’s objection triggers a similar duty to intervene on the trial court’s part in a variety of situations. In Fludd v. Dykes, 863 F.2d 822 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 201, 107 L.Ed.2d 154 (1989), for example, a panel of this court held that Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), applied to civil as well as criminal cases, recognizing the trial court’s responsibility in preventing the use of peremptory challenges for discriminatory purposes. The court analyzed the role of the trial court when a party objects to a venire’s racial composition and concluded that “[i]n overruling the objection, which informed the court that the peremptory challenger may be excluding blacks from the venire on account of their race, the judge becomes guilty of the sort of discriminatory conduct that the equal protection clause proscribes.” Id. at 828. The attorney’s objection thus puts the court on notice that the other side may be improperly exercising its peremptory challenges and triggers a duty on the court’s part to intervene. Assuming the objecting party establishes a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination under Batson, see id. at 829, the court must intervene and require the opponent to come forward with a neutral justification for the challenges. If the objecting party makes out a prima facie case but the trial court refuses to require the opposing party to come forward with a justification, or accepts an inadequate justification, for the challenges, then the trial court assumes responsibility for the consti*1160tutional error as the discriminatory actor under the equal protection clause.
The trial court assumes a similar responsibility, in a sentencing proceeding of a capital case, when a defendant’s attorney raises an objection that a prosecutor’s comment to a jury violates the eighth amendment under Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985). As this court, sitting en banc, explained at length in Mann v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1446 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071, 109 S.Ct. 1353, 103 L.Ed.2d 821 (1989), a court conducts a two-part analysis of a Caldwell claim. First, the court determines whether the prosecutor’s comments would “ ‘minimize the jury’s sense of responsibility for determining the appropriateness of death.’ ” Id. at 1456 (quoting Caldwell, 472 U.S. at 341, 105 S.Ct. at 2646). Second, the court determines “ ‘whether the trial judge in this case sufficiently corrected the impression left by the prosecutor.’ ” Id. (quoting McCorquodale v. Kemp, 829 F.2d 1035, 1037 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1055, 108 S.Ct. 32, 97 L.Ed.2d 819 (1987)). The en banc court then explained the rationale behind this test:
When a trial court does not correct misleading comments as to the jury’s sentencing role, the state has violated the defendant’s eighth amendment rights because the court has given the state’s imprimatur to those comments; the effect is the same as if the trial court had actually instructed the jury that the prosecutor’s comments represented a correct statement of the law.... [Ojur focus is ultimately on the trial court’s actions....
Id. at 1457 (citation omitted); see Harick v. Dugger, 844 F.2d 1464, 1478 (11th Cir.1988) (en banc) (Tjoflat, J., specially concurring, joined by Kravitch, Hatchett, Anderson, & Clark, JJ.) (“Caldwell error occurs if the trial court implicitly puts its imprimatur on the prosecutor’s statements.”), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1071, 109 S.Ct. 1355, 103 L.Ed.2d 822 (1989). The defendant's objection thus puts the court on notice of the potential Caldwell violation and triggers a duty on the court’s part to correct the prosecutor’s comment if it is misleading.4 The prosecutor’s comment, like the prosecutor’s misconduct in Willis, initially causes the error. The trial court, however, following an objection by the defendant’s attorney, has a duty to intervene and correct the error. If the trial court fails to discharge that duty, then it bears causal responsibility for the constitutional error.
Likewise, the trial court has a duty to intervene when counsel representing multiple defendants informs the court of a conflict of interest. See Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 484, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1178, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978); Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 62 S.Ct. 457, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). The Court in Cuyler v. Sullivan emphasized that an attorney has an “ethical obligation to avoid conflicting representations and to advise the court promptly when a conflict of interest arises during the course of trial.” 446 U.S. 335, 346, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1717, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980). Once the attorney fulfills that obligation, though, the court has a duty to intervene. As the Court explained in Holloway, “ ‘[ujpon the trial judge rests the duty of seeing that the trial is conducted with solicitude for the essential rights of the accused.’ ” 435 U.S. at 484, 98 S.Ct. at 1179 (quoting Glasser, 315 U.S. at 71, 62 S.Ct. at 465). In the Court’s view, the attorney’s statement that he had a conflict of interest — a statement made pursuant to the attorney’s obligations as an officer of the court — triggered the judge’s duty to intervene. Under those circumstances, the judge’s failure “either to appoint separate counsel or to take adequate steps to ascertain whether the risk was too remote to warrant separate counsel ... deprived peti*1161tioners of the guarantee of ‘assistance of counsel.’ ” Id., 98 S.Ct. at 1178-79. The court’s duty of inquiry in such a case must, however, be triggered by a timely objection: the trial court has no duty itself “to initiate inquiries into the propriety of multiple representation in every case.” Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 346, 100 S.Ct. at 1717.5
The circumstances surrounding a proceeding may, however, trigger a duty on the trial court’s part to intervene sua sponte, independently of an attorney’s objection. For example, it is well established that, “[w]hen a court has a ‘bona fide doubt’ as to the defendant’s competence, it must sua sponte conduct a hearing on his competence to stand trial.” Hance v. Zant, 696 F.2d 940, 948 (11th Cir.) (citing Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 385, 387, 86 S.Ct. 836, 842, 843, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966)), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210, 103 S.Ct. 3544, 77 L.Ed.2d 1393 (1983), overruled on other grounds, Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1383 (11th Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1010, 107 S.Ct. 3240, 97 L.Ed.2d 744 (1987); see also Tiller v. Esposito, 911 F.2d 575, 576 (11th Cir.1990). The Pate case thus imposes an obligation on the trial court “to protect a defendant’s right not to be tried or convicted while incompetent to stand trial.” Fallada v. Dugger, 819 F.2d 1564, 1568 (11th Cir.1987). The trial court’s failure to discharge this responsibility “deprives [the defendant] of his due process right to a fair trial.” Id. This duty on the court’s part, as a panel of this court explained in Demos v. Johnson, 835 F.2d 840 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1023, 108 S.Ct.1998, 100 L.Ed.2d 229 (1988), is triggered
whenever the court learns of facts or events which raise a reasonable ground to doubt defendant’s competency.... Such information “need not be presented in a formal motion nor argued by defense counsel nor be presented to the judge in form of admissible evidence.” Lokos v. Capps, 625 F.2d 1258, 1260 (5th Cir.1980). The issue is whether, in light of what was known to the trial court, “the failure to make further inquiry into petitioner’s competence to stand trial, denied him a, fair trial.” Drope [v. Missouri], 420 U.S. [162,] 174-75, 95 S.Ct. [896,] 905 [, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975)].
Id. at 843 (citation omitted; footnote omitted); see Bowden v. Francis, 733 F.2d 740, 747 (11th Cir.1984) (“in determining whether a trial court has denied a defendant due process by refusing to obtain a psychiatric evaluation, we must ‘focus on what the trial court did in light of what it then knew’ ”), vacated, 470 U.S. 1079, 105 S.Ct. 1834, 85 L.Ed.2d 135 (remanded for reconsideration in light of Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68, 105 S.Ct. 1087, 84 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985)), aff'd on remand, 767 F.2d 761 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1164, 106 S.Ct. 2291, 90 L.Ed.2d 732 (1986).
Trial courts have a similar duty in the guilty plea context to ensure that a defendant’s plea is made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. As the Supreme Court held in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment allows a state court to accept a guilty plea only if it is entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.6 *1162Thus, independent of the requirements for effective representation by a lawyer, the judge has a duty to ensure that the defendant’s plea satisfies the mandate of due process and to intervene sua sponte by not accepting the plea if it does not satisfy that mandate. The court’s duty, under the due process clause, is triggered the moment the defendant stands to tender his plea. In order to ensure that due process has been accorded, the court must establish on the record “the prerequisites of a valid waiver.” Id., 89 S.Ct. at 1712. If the record fails to demonstrate those prerequisites, then the reviewing court must presume prejudice and set aside the conviction.
As I discuss above, the right to assistance of counsel imposes a duty on the trial court to intervene in certain circumstances. The court has a “protecting duty,” to use the Johnson Court’s term, with respect to *1163the “constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel.” 304 U.S. at 465, 58 S.Ct. at 1023. Pursuant to this duty, if the accused appears at a critical stage of the criminal process without an attorney, the court has “the serious and weighty responsibility ... of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused.” Id., 58 S.Ct. at 1023. If the defendant does not waive his right to counsel, then the court can discharge its “protecting duty” only by postponing the proceeding until the defendant has assistance of counsel. Thus, when the court is put on notice that the defendant lacks assistance of counsel, the court assumes a responsibility to intervene by either continuing the proceeding or ensuring that the defendant has intelligently and competently waived his right to counsel.
As cases like Cronic and Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932), demonstrate, moreover, the court's “protecting duty” extends beyond the situation where a defendant appears without counsel. Less obvious deprivations of the defendant’s right to counsel also trigger the court’s duty to intervene. As I discuss above, the right to assistance of counsel guarantees the defendant more than the “mere physical presence of an attorney,” Holloway, 435 U.S. at 490, 98 S.Ct. at 1181; it guarantees the defendant “effective assistance of counsel,” McMann, 397 U.S. at 771 n. 14, 90 S.Ct. at 1449 n. 14. Accordingly, just as the court has a duty to intervene when the defendant appears without counsel, the court also has a duty to intervene when it becomes apparent to the court from the circumstances that the defendant is without counsel who can actually assist him. “If no actual ‘Assistance’ ‘for’ the accused’s ‘defence’ is provided, then the constitutional guarantee has been violated.” Cronic, 466 U.S. at 654, 104 S.Ct. at 2044.
Of course, when a defendant who has invoked his right to counsel appears in court without a lawyer, the court is automatically put on notice that the defendant lacks meaningful representation. In contrast, when the defendant appears in court along with a lawyer, but a lawyer who is unable to provide even the most basic assistance, the surrounding circumstances may put the court on notice that the defendant in effect lacks assistance of counsel. Several kinds of events can provide such notice to the court. For example, as in the Holloway case, the lawyer himself can inform the court of his inability to represent his client. Or, as in Powell (which I address in detail below), the circumstances surrounding the proceeding can themselves be so extreme as to give the judge notice that any lawyer, even a fully competent one, would be unable to provide “the aid of counsel in any real sense.” See Powell, 287 U.S. at 57, 53 S.Ct. at 60; Cronic, 466 U.S. at 659-60, 104 S.Ct. at 2047. The present case, as I discuss below, falls into the Holloway category: the petitioner’s lawyer himself expressly informed the court of his inability to provide meaningful representation, thus triggering the court’s “protecting duty” to intervene.
Once the court’s “protecting duty” is triggered, the court must satisfy its responsibility in one of two ways: either it must postpone the proceeding until the defendant receives meaningful representation, or it must ensure that the defendant wants to proceed pro se and intelligently and knowingly waives his right to assistance of counsel. As the Court held in Faretta v. California, “a defendant in a state criminal trial has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” 422 U.S. 806, 807, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 2527, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); see id. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541 (citing Johnson). The court, however, must still discharge its “protecting duty” by ensuring that the defendant “voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so.” In addressing this responsibility on the court’s part, the Faretta Court held:
Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that “he knows *1164what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.”
Id. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541.
The lower courts have further developed the Faretta Court’s holding on this point. This court has established a two-part requirement for ensuring that the defendant has “knowingly and intelligently” waived his right to assistance of counsel and has chosen self-representation. As this court has stated, “[b]efore a court permits a defendant to represent himself ..., the defendant must clearly and unequivocally assert the right of self-representation.” Fitzpatrick v. Wainwright, 800 F.2d 1057, 1064 (11th Cir.1986) (citing Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 808 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 966, 105 S.Ct. 366, 83 L.Ed.2d 302 (1984)); see Dorman v. Wainwright, 798 F.2d 1358, 1366 (11th Cir.1986) (discussing actions required for assertion of right to self-representation), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 951, 107 S.Ct. 1616, 94 L.Ed.2d 801 (1987). The court must elicit this unequivocal assertion in order to safeguard the defendant’s right to counsel.
In addition to this “clear and unequivocal assertion of the right of self-representation,” this court has held that “other safeguards are required”: “a trial judge should normally conduct a waiver hearing to insure that the defendant understands the disadvantages of self-representation, including, inter alia, the defendant’s understanding of the risks and complexities of his particular case.” Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1065; see Dorman, 798 F.2d at 1366. In some rare eases, “depending] on the particular facts and circumstances ..., including the background, experience, and conduct of the accused,” a valid waiver can be shown absent such a hearing. Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1065, 1068.
Under this body of caselaw, therefore, if the defendant proceeds at a critical stage without the assistance of counsel — either in fact or constructively — and the trial court, being aware of this fact, has not, pursuant to Faretta, determined on the record that the defendant has knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and asserted his right to self-representation,7 then the defendant’s conviction cannot stand. In such a case, moreover, the reviewing court must presume prejudice as a matter of law, and set aside the conviction once the defendant establishes a prima fa-cie case. I discuss this prejudice requirement next.
B. The Presumption of Prejudice.
Before addressing the conclusive presumption of prejudice in cases where the trial judge has failed to discharge his “protecting duty” under Johnson and Gideon, I discuss more generally how a court conducts a collateral review of a claim of trial court error at a critical stage of a criminal prosecution.
The general principle behind these judge error cases is that due process requires a judge to ensure the fairness of the proceeding before him. Judge error thus occurs when the trial judge receives notice of a *1165circumstance or event that threatens the proceeding’s fairness but fails to take corrective action, allowing (or forcing) the proceeding to continue despite the threat. As I discuss above, the judge’s duty to intervene can be triggered in different ways: in some cases, the circumstances themselves trigger the judge’s duty to intervene sua sponte; in other cases, an attorney’s announcement to the court, often an objection, triggers the duty. By not intervening under such circumstances, the judge fails to ensure that the defendant is accorded a procedure that he is due and thereby creates the possibility of undue prejudice to the defendant.
A common procedural model characterizes all of these trial judge error claims. Under this model, a defendant establishes a prima facie case of constitutional error by pointing to the transcript of the trial court proceeding.8 Because trial court error derives from the judge’s failure to intervene given the circumstances of the proceeding before him, the error necessarily appears on the trial court transcript. Accordingly, the reviewing court decides whether or not the trial judge committed error (and thus whether or not the defendant makes out a prima facie case) by looking “not to evidence disclosed and developed in later state or federal collateral proceedings — evidence for which the trial judge cannot conceivably be held accountable — but to the record that was before the trial judge at the time of the challenged action.” Smith v. Zant, 887 F.2d 1407, 1414 (11th Cir.1989) (en banc) (Tjoflat, J., specially concurring). The reviewing court, in effect, looks over the shoulder of the trial judge and evaluates the judge’s actions in light of the circumstances before him at the time. See, e.g., Smith v. Kelso, 863 F.2d 1564, 1574 (11th Cir.) (Tjoflat, J., specially concurring) (reviewing court evaluates whether trial judge committed constitutional error in denying motion for severance based on circumstances before judge at time, and not from perspective of “Monday morning quarterback”), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1072, 109 S.Ct. 2079, 104 L.Ed.2d 644 (1989); Moore v. Kemp, 809 F.2d 702, 710 (11th Cir.1987) (en banc) (assessing reasonableness of trial judge’s action in denying defendant’s request for expert witness as of “the time [the trial judge] took it”); Stephens v. Kemp, 846 F.2d 642, 646-47 (11th Cir.) (following Moore), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 872, 109 S.Ct. 189, 102 L.Ed.2d 158 (1988); Bowden, 733 F.2d at 747 (“in determining whether a trial court has denied a defendant due process by refusing to obtain a psychiatric evaluation, we must ‘focus on what the trial court did in light of what it then knew ’ ” (emphasis added) (quoting Hance, 696 F.2d at 948)).
The defendant thus makes out a prima facie case by showing, based on the trial court transcript, that the trial judge failed to discharge his protecting duty given the circumstances before him. That showing raises a presumption of prejudice. That is, the trial court transcript itself yields a presumption of prejudice.9 Depending upon *1166the nature of the error at issue, the prosecution may or may not be able to rebut the presumption of prejudice.
Three categories of trial judge error exist. In the first category, the nature of the error is such that the prosecution, in a collateral proceeding, may be able to present extrinsic evidence — which was not presented to the trial judge — in order to rebut the presumption of prejudice raised by the defendant’s prima facie case. In the second category, the nature of the error is such that the prosecution is precluded by existing caselaw from rebutting the presumption of prejudice with extrinsic evidence, but it may be able to show, based solely on the record of the criminal proceeding, that the error was harmless. In the third category of error, a per se rule of prejudice applies, and the prosecution is entirely precluded from rebutting the defendant’s prima facie case: policy concerns and the practical limitations of determining prejudice in these cases justify a per se rule without regard to whether the error actually prejudiced the defendant. I consider these three categories of error in turn.
1.
I discuss the first category of trial judge error, where the prosecution may rebut the prejudice inherent in the error with extrinsic evidence in a collateral proceeding, by examining how a defendant brings a claim of constitutional error under Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). In Boykin, the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment allows a state court to accept a guilty plea only if it is entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Generally, when a defendant’s conviction is based on a plea of guilty, he cannot attack his conviction on direct appeal: he has admitted his guilt, waived several constitutional rights, and been sentenced accordingly.10 Most Boy-*1167kin claims, therefore, come to federal court in the context of a habeas proceeding.
According to the lower courts’ interpretation of Boykin in the habeas context, see, e.g., Roddy v. Black, 516 F.2d 1380 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 226, 46 L.Ed.2d 147 (1975); McChesney v. Henderson, 482 F.2d 1101 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1146, 94 S.Ct. 901, 39 L.Ed.2d 102 (1974),11 the defendant establishes a prima facie case under Boykin if the record of the plea hearing fails to demonstrate a valid waiver of the defendant’s constitutional rights. Once the defendant establishes a prima facie case, a presumption of prejudice arises under Boykin. The state may be able to rebut this presumption by showing that the plea was in fact knowingly and intelligently entered. Assuming the defendant establishes his prima facie case under Boykin, the state must then show that, despite the record’s failure to demonstrate a valid waiver of constitutional rights, the defendant suffered no prejudice — i.e., he in fact possessed the knowledge and understanding necessary for a valid waiver. The state may be able to satisfy this burden by pointing to some other evidence — aside from the record of the plea hearing itself — that the defendant understood what he was doing when he pled. The state could satisfy this requirement by proving, for example, that the defendant had a law degree, had practiced criminal law for a number of years, was familiar with the facts of his own case, and had extensively researched the applicable law.
The state could similarly rebut a defendant’s claim that the trial court violated the rule in Faretta by allowing the defendant to proceed pro se without holding a waiver hearing.12 Faretta, like Boykin, concerns whether the defendant possesses the understanding necessary for a valid waiver of constitutional rights. As a matter of law, the court satisfies the mandate of Faretta by holding a waiver hearing. If the court fails to hold such a hearing, however, the state could still show that the defendant possessed the necessary understanding for a valid waiver. For example, as this court explained in Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1065, the state could point to “the background, experience, and conduct of the accused” in order to demonstrate that the defendant understood the disadvantages of self-representation. If the evidence showed that the defendant did in fact possess such an understanding, then the defendant’s Faretta claim would fail.
*11682.
In the second category, the nature of the error is such that the prosecution is precluded under the caselaw from presenting extrinsic evidence in a collateral proceeding to rebut the presumption of prejudice. Rather, the prosecution must persuade the reviewing court that, based on the record of the trial court proceeding, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24, 87 S.Ct. 824, 828, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). That is, absent the error, the outcome of the proceeding would not have changed.
Assume, for example, that a defendant claims under Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979), that the trial court gave a jury instruction that impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to the defendant on a fact necessary to establish an element of the charged offense. The defendant establishes a prima facie ease of constitutional error by relying on the language of the instruction. If, as the Court explained in Sand-strom, a reasonable juror could have interpreted the instruction as shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, then the reviewing court cannot discount the possibility that one of the jurors actually did interpret it to do so and must presume that the instruction prejudiced the defendant. See 442 U.S. at 519, 99 S.Ct. at 2456-57. The only way the prosecution could rebut this presumption of prejudice with extrinsic evidence would be to have the court convene a post-conviction evidentiary hearing in which the prosecution could examine each of the jurors, under oath, regarding his or her interpretation of the instruction at issue. It requires little discussion to demonstrate the unreliability, if not the utter futility, of such a procedure. The passage of time since the trial would cloud the jurors’ memories, and testimony in the context of a collateral evidentiary hearing would hardly be an accurate indication of the role the instruction may actually have played in the course of the jury’s deliberations. The procedure, moreover, would inevitably require the collateral court and counsel to ride roughshod through the jury’s entire deliberation process. If, for example, the jurors indicated that they had not interpreted the instruction as shifting the burden of proof to the defendant or that the proof of guilt was such that the instruction had no effect on their deliberations, then the court would have to allow the petitioner's attorney to conduct a thorough cross-examination of every juror in an attempt to demonstrate that the instruction had influenced the deliberation process as a whole. Not only would the testimony be inherently unreliable, but our system of justice clearly could not tolerate such an invasion of the sanctity of the deliberation process. In the Sandstrom situation, therefore, if the prosecution is to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from an improper burden-shifting instruction, it must do so by showing that, based on the record of the trial proceeding alone, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced by the instruction.
As this court explained in Collins v. Zant, 892 F.2d 1502, 1507 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 225, 112 L.Ed.2d 180 (1990), a jury instruction that violates Sandstrom can prove to be harmless either (1) because the defendant conceded the ultimate fact at issue, or (2) because the evidence regarding that fact was so overwhelming that the jury did not have to rely on the erroneous instruction in convicting the defendant. In Collins, the defendant was charged with murdering a woman with a tire jack. In his charge to the jury, the trial judge gave an erroneous instruction on the issue of the defendant’s intent to cause the victim’s death. The defendant, who was at the scene of the murder but who contended that another person did the killing, never disputed that whoever struck the victim intended her death; rather, he claimed that he was not the one who had struck the fatal blow. The reviewing court thus determined, based on the trial court record, that the error was harmless: the defendant had conceded the ultimate fact at issue. Although the trial court transcript showed that the error had in fact occurred, thus yielding a presumption of prejudice, the *1169record also demonstrated that the error was in effect harmless.
3.
In the third category, the nature of the trial judge error is such that a per se rule of prejudice applies: the prosecution is entirely precluded by law from rebutting the defendant’s prima facie case of constitutional error either by presenting extrinsic evidence in a collateral proceeding or by contending that the trial court transcript, considered as a whole, demonstrates that the error was harmless. As the Court emphasized in Chapman, “there are some constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.” 386 U.S. at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 827-28. In his concurring opinion in Chapman, Justice Stewart elaborated on this idea by cataloguing the “long line of cases, involving a variety of constitutional claims in both state and federal prosecutions, [in which] this Court has steadfastly rejected any notion that constitutional violations might be disregarded on the ground that they were ‘harmless.’ ” Id. at 42, 87 S.Ct. at 837. This list included cases in which the Court reversed convictions after involuntary confessions had been introduced at trial, e.g., Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U.S. 528, 537, 83 S.Ct. 917, 922, 9 L.Ed.2d 922 (1963); cases in which a defendant was denied counsel at trial, e.g., Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); cases in which the judge had a financial interest in the result, e.g., Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 535, 47 S.Ct. 437, 445, 71 L.Ed. 749 (1927); cases in which the defendant was tried in a community exposed to highly adverse publicity about his case, e.g., Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 351-52, 86 S.Ct. 1507, 1516, 16 L.Ed.2d 600 (1966); cases in which the jury instruction contained an unconstitutional presumption, e.g., Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U.S. 607, 613-15, 66 S.Ct. 402, 405-06, 90 L.Ed. 350 (1946); cases in which the conviction rested on a constitutionally impermissible ground, e.g., Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 367-68, 51 S.Ct. 532, 535, 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931); and, finally, cases involving discrimination in the jury selection process, e.g., Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545, 87 S.Ct. 643, 17 L.Ed.2d 599 (1967). As Justice Stewart emphasized, none of the reversals in these cases “turnfed] on any showing of prejudice to the defendant.” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 44, 87 S.Ct. at 838. Although Justice Stewart’s list dates back nearly twenty years, his observation still applies today to a substantial body of case-law.
As the Supreme Court just last term clarified in Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272, 278, 109 S.Ct. 594, 599, 102 L.Ed.2d 624 (1989), “a showing of prejudice is not an essential component of a violation of the rule announced in Geders.” In Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 96 S.Ct. 1330, 47 L.Ed.2d 592 (1976), a federal district court issued an order in a criminal trial preventing a defendant from consulting with counsel during a seventeen-hour overnight recess occurring between direct and cross-examination of the defendant. The Court held that the order impinged on the defendant’s right to counsel. As the Court in Perry observed, the Geders Court “simply reversed the defendant’s convictions without pausing to consider the extent of the actual prejudice, if any, that resulted from the defendant’s denial of access to his lawyer during the overnight recess.” 488 U.S. at 279, 109 S.Ct. at 599. A plurality of our court, sitting en banc, had already adopted a per se rule of prejudice under Geders in a case involving a collateral attack on a state conviction. See Crutchfield v. Wainwright, 803 F.2d 1103 (11th Cir.1986) (en banc). As Judge Hatchett, writing for the plurality, stated in Crutch-field: “any deprivation of assistance of counsel constitutes reversible error.” Id. at 1108.13
Gideon, of course, stands as a classic example of constitutional error requiring a per se rule of prejudice. In Gideon, a Florida state court denied an indigent de*1170fendant’s request for appointed counsel. The defendant proceeded pro se and was convicted. The Supreme Court held that the sixth amendment right to assistance of counsel is “fundamental and essential to a fair trial” and thus applies to the states through incorporation into the fourteenth amendment; without considering the issue of prejudice, the Court reversed the conviction. See 372 U.S. at 342, 345, 83 S.Ct. at 795, 797.
The rule in Gideon also applies to all critical stages. The Court thus reversed a conviction in Hamilton v. Alabama, where a defendant pled guilty at his arraignment without counsel. As the Court stated, “[wjhen one pleads to a capital charge without benefit of counsel, we do not stop to determine whether prejudice resulted.” 368 U.S. 52, 55, 82 S.Ct. 157, 159, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961).
Drawing upon the principles recognized in Gideon, the Court in Cronic articulated the rule that, “[i]f no actual ‘Assistance’ ‘for’ the accused’s ‘defence’ is provided, then the constitutional guarantee has been violated.” 466 U.S. at 654, 104 S.Ct. at 2044. In those circumstances, the Court explained, “although counsel is available to assist the accused during trial, the likelihood that any lawyer, even a fully competent one, could provide effective assistance is so small that a presumption of prejudice is appropriate without inquiry into the actual conduct of the trial.” Id. at 659-60, 104 S.Ct. at 2047.
The Court has also applied a conclusive presumption of prejudice in the Glas-ser-Holloway line of cases, which I discuss above. The Court has held that, if a court fails to intervene when an attorney representing multiple defendants informs the court of a conflict of interest, that constitutes reversible error “even in the absence of a showing of specific prejudice.” Holloway, 435 U.S. at 487-89, 98 S.Ct. at 1180-81. The Court further emphasized in Holloway that, when an attorney has a conflict of interest, the “mere physical presence of [that] attorney does not fulfill the Sixth Amendment guarantee.” Id. at 490, 98 S.Ct. at 1181. As the Court explained, “tjjoint representation of conflicting interests is suspect because of what it tends to prevent the attorney from doing.” Id. at 489, 98 S.Ct. at 1181.
Similarly, in Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974), the Court held that a trial court’s protective order limiting a defendant’s cross-examination of a key eyewitness violated the defendant’s right to confront his accusers. In the Court’s view, because cross-examination is an essential component of the truth-seeking process, and thus vital to due process, the error required reversal without “speeulatpon] as to whether the jury, as sole judge of the credibility of a witness, would have accepted this line of reasoning [designed to impeach the witness on cross-examination] had counsel been permitted to fully present it.” Id. at 317, 94 S.Ct. at 1111.
A common rationale supports the Court’s adoption of a per se rule of prejudice in all of these cases. In each case, the Court begins with the well-established premise that the right to counsel is a fundamental component of the criminal justice system. A defendant needs a lawyer in order to ensure that his rights are protected at every critical stage of his case. But the lawyer has an even larger importance as a component of the criminal justice system. That is, the very integrity of our system— its fairness, its accuracy as a truth-seeking process, and thus its ability to accord justice — depends upon effective assistance of counsel. As the Court stressed in Cronic, “ ‘[t]he very premise of our adversary system of criminal justice is that partisan advocacy on both sides of a case will best promote the ultimate objective that the guilty be convicted and the innocent go free.’ ” 466 U.S. at 655, 104 S.Ct. at 2045 (quoting Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 862, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 2555, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975)). In the absence of meaningful representation, therefore, “ ‘a serious risk of injustice infects the trial itself.' ” Id. at 656, 104 S.Ct. at 2045 (quoting Cuyler v. Sullivan, 446 U.S. 335, 343, 100 S.Ct. 1708, 1715, 64 L.Ed.2d 333 (1980)). Such an absence undermines not only the defendant’s individual rights, but also the accuracy of *1171the truth-seeking process and thus the integrity of the criminal justice system itself.
The per se rule of prejudice in cases implicating the right to assistance of counsel follows directly from this premise. The importance of the right to assistance of counsel — in and of itself — requires a conclusive presumption of prejudice when that right is not protected. As the Court reiterated in Holloway, “[t]o determine the precise degree of prejudice sustained by [the defendant] ... is at once difficult and unnecessary. The right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.” 435 U.S. at 488, 98 S.Ct. at 1181 (quoting Glasser, 315 U.S. at 75-76, 62 S.Ct. at 467). “The assistance of counsel is among those ‘constitutional rights so basic to a fair trial that their infraction can never be treated as harmless error.’ ” Id. at 489, 98 S.Ct. at 1181 (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. at 23, 87 S.Ct. at 827); see also Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. 249, 255, 108 S.Ct. 1792, 1797, 100 L.Ed.2d 284 (1988).
An obvious rationale supports this per se rule: given the actual or constructive denial of counsel at a critical stage, it is practically impossible to conduct a prejudice inquiry in a collateral proceeding. The pro-section would have to prove a lack of prejudice either by presenting extrinsic evidence or by demonstrating, based on the trial court transcript itself, that the denial of representation was harmless. The prosecution could do neither.
As I discuss above with respect to a Sandstrom situation, the prosecution would be unable to present any reliable extrinsic evidence in a post-conviction evi-dentiary hearing in order to rebut the presumption of prejudice raised by the defendant’s prima facie case. Assume, for example, that the state, in a case like Gideon where the defendant was actually denied counsel, attempted to prove at a collateral evidentiary hearing that the petitioner was not in fact prejudiced by the denial of counsel. Obviously, the state would need the testimony of a lawyer in order to prove the absence of prejudice. The lawyer would have to testify that, even if he had been fully prepared to defend the petitioner at trial, he would not have done anything more than the petitioner actually did himself. Even with that testimony, the state would still have to satisfy the collateral court — by pure argument, I suppose, because the lawyer’s testimony would not be probative — that the jury at trial (and not a hypothetical “reasonable” jury) would nevertheless have convicted the petitioner. In other words, from the cold record of the trial, the collateral court would have to be able to say, with great confidence, that the mere presence of an attorney at the trial could not have influenced even one juror to vote not guilty. Of course, before the collateral court decided this question, the petitioner could put his own expert lawyer on the stand. That lawyer would presumably testify that he would have conducted a defense that was radically different from the defense actually conducted by the- petitioner. That testimony would reduce even more the reviewing court’s ability confidently to decide that the outcome of the trial would have been the same even if the petitioner had an attorney. Clearly, such a procedure would be inherently unreliable.
Nor could the prosecution demonstrate, based on the trial court transcript itself, that the denial of legal representation was harmless. In conducting a harmless-error analysis of trial judge error, as I show above, the court must isolate the error at issue and evaluate its effect on the proceeding as a whole. Unless the court, based on this analysis, can “declare a belief that [the error] was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt,” Chapman, 386 U.S. at 24, 87 S.Ct. at 828, then it must grant the petitioner relief. In the Gideon-type case, the reviewing court simply cannot declare, with any degree of certainty, that the outcome of the trial would have been the same even if the defendant had a lawyer.
The court’s ability to conduct a harmless-error review depends upon certain conditions. As the Court explained in Holloway, “[i]n the normal ease where a harmless-error rule is applied, the error occurs at trial and its scope is readily identifiable. Ac*1172cordingly, the reviewing court can undertake with some confidence its relatively narrow task of assessing the likelihood that the error materially affected the deliberations of the jury.” 435 U.S. at 490, 98 S.Ct. at 1182. The reviewing court must be able to identify, based on the record of the trial court proceeding, the scope of the error. In addition, the reviewing court must be able to reconstruct, again based on the record, how the proceeding would have occurred without the error. To the extent that the reviewing court finds that the absence of the error would have materially altered the case, the court’s reconstruction necessarily becomes fuzzy as well. The record before the reviewing court no longer approximates what would have occurred, and the court can only predict what turns the proceeding might have taken. If the court’s analysis reaches that point — the point where reconstruction turns into prediction — then the error at issue cannot be considered harmless.
The per se rule of prejudice in cases where the defendant is actually or constructively denied assistance of counsel reflects the limits of harmless-error review. In the Gideon-type case, the denial of counsel “pervadefs] the entire proceeding.” Satterwhite v. Texas, 486 U.S. at 256, 108 S.Ct. at 1797. If, as I demonstrate above, the reviewing court would be unable to conduct a prejudice inquiry even with the benefit of a lawyer’s expert testimony in a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, then it would undeniably be unable to conduct such an inquiry based only on the cold record of the trial proceeding without any extrinsic evidence. That record alone would provide the reviewing court no framework in which to reconstruct the trial: the court could not isolate a given error and determine how the proceeding would have gone without the error. As Justice O’Connor explained in Satterwhite, “[sjince the scope of a violation such as a deprivation of the right to conflict-free representation cannot be discerned from the record, any inquiry into its effect on the outcome of the case would be purely speculative.” Id. at 256, 108 S.Ct. at 1797; see Holloway, 435 U.S. at 490-91, 98 S.Ct. at 1182. The denial of an attorney “by [its] very nature cast[s] so much doubt on the fairness of the trial process that, as a matter of law, [it] can never be considered harmless.” Id. 486 U.S. at 256, 108 S.Ct. at 1797. To conduct a harmless-error review in such circumstances would force the reviewing court well beyond the narrow limits envisioned by the Chapman Court: the reviewing court’s conclusion could be nothing more than “purely speculative,” Satter-white, 486 U.S. at 256, 108 S.Ct. at 1797.
In the long run, moreover, a per se rule of prejudice in these kinds of cases may be the most efficient mechanism for preventing miscarriages of justice. Relitigating an entire case in a collateral proceeding, and then sending the case back to the trial judge for further proceedings if necessary, is clearly not an efficient procedure. In addition, a per se rule of prejudice requiring the collateral court to set aside the petitioner’s conviction creates a strong incentive for the courts at the state and federal trial level to ensure that a defendant is accorded meaningful representation. A per se rule of prejudice will thus sharpen the trial court’s sense of responsibility in discharging its duties at the first stage. In the end, such a result is far more desirable than the “spin-off of collateral proceedings that seek to probe murky memories.” Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244, 89 S.Ct. at 1713.
With this analytical framework in mind, I now turn to a consideration of the present case.
III.
Following this framework, the question in the present case becomes whether the circumstances of Stano’s plea hearing triggered a duty on the court’s part not to accept Stano’s guilty pleas at that time. Assuming that the court did have such a duty, the question then arises whether the court’s failure to discharge that duty constituted reversible error: that is, does a per se rule of prejudice apply to this kind of violation or, if not, was the error harmless. I address these questions in turn.
*1173A. The Court’s Duty to Intervene.
This court today emphasizes that a defendant has a right to plead guilty, and that in exercising this right, the defendant can reject his attorney’s advice to the contrary and tender his plea. In the court’s view, that is all this case involves: Stano rejected his lawyer’s advice not to plead guilty at the time and tendered his pleas. Given those facts, says this court, the trial judge correctly allowed Stano to plead, and any holding to the contrary would mean that, in any case where the court allowed the defendant to plead guilty against his attorney’s advice, the court would be depriving him of his right to due process. Given those facts, I would agree wholeheartedly with the court’s conclusion. Those facts, however, are not the facts of this case.
My disagreement with the court centers on the idea of “advice,” and, more specifically, on the kind of advice that an attorney must give in order to provide “the aid of counsel in any real sense,” Powell, 287 U.S. at 57, 53 S.Ct. at 60. The court finds that Stano’s attorney, Mr. Pearl, “advised” Sta-no not to plead guilty at the time but to wait until Pearl could conduct a more thorough investigation of the case. The court also finds that Stano listened to this “advice,” decided not to follow it, and pled guilty. In my view, Mr. Pearl’s suggestion that Stano not plead at the time did not constitute “advice”; it did not even approximate the requirements for assistance of counsel in the context of a plea hearing. I demonstrate this point by surveying the established law concerning the minimum standards for assistance of counsel in the plea context. Based on this law, I cannot understand how the court can maintain that Pearl satisfied even the most basic requirements for assistance of counsel.
From the conclusion that Pearl failed to provide assistance of counsel in any real sense, the rest of my analysis logically follows. Under an extensive body of case-law, which I discuss above, the court has a “protecting duty” to ensure that, at every critical stage of the criminal prosecution, a defendant either receives or waives assistance of counsel. If the defendant lacks assistance of counsel at a critical stage, and the court has notice of this lack, then the court must either (1) determine that the defendant clearly wants to proceed pro se and knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel, or (2) if the defendant does not waive his right to counsel, the court must postpone the proceeding until the defendant has counsel. If the court fails to determine that the defendant waives his right to counsel and nevertheless allows the proceeding to continue, then the court fails to discharge its protecting duty, the defendant is denied his right to assistance of counsel, and the conviction must be reversed. In such a circumstance, moreover, a per se rule of prejudice applies.
In the present ease, as I show, Stano lacked genuine assistance of counsel. As I also show, the court had notice that this was the case. The court thus had a “protecting duty” either to determine that Sta-no wanted to proceed pro se and knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel or to postpone the proceeding until Stano had assistance of counsel. Under Faretta and its progeny in this circuit, which establish the requirements for a valid waiver of the right to assistance of counsel, Stano clearly did not waive his right to counsel. The court nevertheless accepted Stano’s pleas. In my view, the conclusion is inescapable that the court failed to discharge its protecting duty and Stano was denied his right to counsel. Accordingly, prejudice must be presumed and Stano’s convictions must be set aside. I develop these points in turn.
I first demonstrate that Pearl failed to provide meaningful assistance of counsel. I do so by analyzing Pearl’s conduct in light of the legal standards for assistance of counsel in the plea context.
At the commencement of the plea hearing, Mr. Pearl represented to the court as follows: “I have not yet received full discovery from the state ... and, therefore, am not prepared to say that I know all of the substantive facts concerning these two killings.” He explained the reason behind *1174the State’s delay in forwarding the discovery and then declared: “I am not fully prepared to advise him as to whether the State has sufficient evidence to convict him or not.” Pearl indicated that he had spoken with the prosecutor, and the prosecutor had assured him “that the State can independently establish the corpus delicti in both of these cases.” Pearl also indicated that “Mr. Stano tells me that that is so,” i.e., that the State can independently establish the corpus delicti. In addition, Pearl stated that Stano thought his confessions “were made voluntarily, they were made competently, and intelligently after warning of his rights and that, therefore, there does not exist a good possibility that either of his admissions could be suppressed on a hearing.” That is, Stano thought his confessions were legally valid. Finally, Pearl informed the court that Stano “wants to go forward and enter this plea" but that “I am not fully prepared at this time as his attorney to advise him with respect to the advisability of a trial or not.”
Pearl also testified at the post-conviction evidentiary hearing before the district court. According to his testimony, he had actually received discovery from the State but not discovery relating to collateral crimes evidence that the State was thinking of presenting at trial. He had not, however, thoroughly reviewed that discovery or conducted any independent investigation into the facts. As he explained, after receiving the discovery, he went to talk with Stano. Stano said that he wanted to plead guilty: Stano felt that the State’s cases were good and that his confessions were made voluntarily. Pearl testified that “I told him it would be premature, I had no opportunity to make a full investigation, or take depositions, or to verify any of the allegations of the two indictments....” 14 Following the meeting, Pearl conducted no additional investigation. Pearl also testified that the plea hearing transcript was accurate.
This testimony is entirely consistent with Pearl’s representations to the court at the plea hearing. The testimony clarifies that Pearl had in fact received some discovery but that he had undertaken no investigation whatsoever into the facts of the cases, the strength of the State’s cases against Stano, or the legal validity of Stano’s confessions. As the testimony and the plea transcript both establish, Pearl acted as nothing more than a conduit to the court for his client. Stano thought the State had strong cases against him; Stano thought his confessions were valid; Stano thought the State could independently establish the corpus delicti of the crimes; and Stano thought all of this without the benefit of any investigation into the facts, any research into the law, or any legal analysis of the cases by his attorney, Mr. Pearl. And Pearl, in his statement to the court at the plea hearing, confirmed that this was in fact the situation. Based on Pearl’s statement, therefore, the court knew that Stano had reached his decision to plead guilty independently of any factual investigation or legal analysis by Pearl. Of course, the court also knew that Pearl had suggested that Stano not plead under those circumstances and that Stano had rejected that advice.
The court today agrees in the main with this statement of the facts. In its view, however, Pearl’s statement to Stano suggesting that Stano not yet plead guilty constituted assistance of counsel,15 and Sta-*1175no was entitled to decide to plead despite Pearl’s statement. In my view, which I elaborate below, Pearl’s statement did not constitute assistance of counsel in any real sense. Once it is established that Stano lacked assistance of counsel in reaching his decision to plead, it follows that the court could accept Stano's pleas only if it first determined that Stano unequivocally wanted to proceed pro se and knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. A defendant, of course, has a right to plead guilty, but if he wants to do so without assistance of counsel, a court cannot accept his plea unless the defendant first waives his right to counsel. The question here thus becomes whether Stano’s decision to plead guilty constituted a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. Before considering that question — the answer to which is already painfully obvious — I tackle the issue whether Pearl’s conduct constituted assistance of counsel.
Courts have explicitly considered what assistance of counsel requires in the context of a plea hearing. In Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 721, 68 S.Ct. 316, 322, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948), the Supreme Court stated: “Prior to trial an accused is entitled to rely upon his counsel to make an independent examination of the facts, circumstances, pleadings and laws involved and then to offer his informed opinion as to what plea should be entered.” As the Court explained, “[d]etermining whether an accused is guilty or innocent of the charges in a complex legal indictment is seldom a simple and easy task for a layman, even though acutely intelligent.” Id., 68 S.Ct. at 322. The Court further explained in McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1171, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969), that “because a guilty plea is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge, it cannot be truly voluntary unless the defendant possesses an understanding of the law in relation to the facts.” As our predecessor court stated, “[providing this ‘understanding of the law in relation to the facts’ is the function of the accused’s appointed counsel.” Walker v. Caldwell, 476 F.2d 213, 218 (5th Cir.1973); see Wofford v. Wainwright, 748 F.2d 1505, 1508 (11th Cir.1984); Harris v. Oliver, 645 F.2d 327, 329 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1109, 102 S.Ct. 687, 70 L.Ed.2d 650 (1981). Although counsel’s duty to one who pleads guilty may be “lesser” than the duty to a client who decides to go to trial, the attorney still must “provide his client with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts, so that the accused may make an informed and conscious choice between accepting the prosecution’s offer and going to trial.” Wofford, 748 F.2d at 1508.
These standards focus on three elements: (1) the law, (2) the facts, and (3) the relation between them. Assistance of counsel thus requires that the lawyer have a grasp of the law and the facts so that he can provide the defendant with an understanding of how the law applies to the facts of the case at hand. That is, based on his research of the law and the facts, along with his analysis of the relation between them, the lawyer gives the defendant an “informed opinion” about what plea the defendant should enter. On the basis of that informed opinion, the defendant then decides how to plead. Obviously, if the lawyer does not have a grasp of either the law or the facts, he will be unable to give the defendant an informed opinion. In such a case, therefore, the lawyer will be unable to accomplish his “function.” He will not be providing assistance of counsel, and the defendant — without an understanding of the law in relation to the facts — will by definition be unable to make a decision informed by his lawyer’s advice.
Applying these standards here, I conclude that Mr. Pearl’s conduct clearly fell short of the most basic requirements for meaningful representation. As Pearl stated to the court, he told Stano that he had not evaluated the eases. For exactly that reason — that is, because he had undertaken no independent investigation or analysis— *1176Pearl urged Stano not to plead.16 The applicable legal standards define “advice” as providing the client with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts of his case. Pearl’s statement urging Stano not to plead does not constitute such advice.
Nor does Pearl’s conduct at the plea hearing itself alter this conclusion. As Pearl himself informed the court, he acted as nothing more than a mouthpiece for Stano, a conduit for Stano's “legal” conclusions regarding the cases. Pearl told the court that Stano thought his confessions were “legally” valid and that Stano thought the prosecutor could independently establish the corpus delicti in both cases. Pearl, of course, also told the court that the State had told him that the State could independently establish the corpus delicti.17 Nothing in the transcript of the plea hearing suggests that Pearl did anything more than he indicated he could do: he served merely as a mouthpiece for Stano. Serving as a mouthpiece, however, does not constitute representation.
Pearl thus failed to provide any real assistance of counsel.18 The nature of Pearl’s failure to provide representation also distinguishes this case from the normal ineffective-assistance-of-counsel case, which courts analyze under StricklandL19 First, as Pearl himself admitted, he undertook no factual investigation or legal analysis whatsoever: his lack of assistance was *1177total. In the normal Strickland case, the attorney either fails to prepare for the trial court proceeding or he performs inadequately, but he does so in the course of representing the defendant. Although ineffective, that representation is still more than nominal. See, e.g., Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52, 106 S.Ct. 366, 88 L.Ed.2d 203 (1985). Here, Pearl’s total failure at such an early, but seminal, stage to undertake any of the preparation required under Von Moltke makes this a different kind of case. The lack of assistance entirely pervades the case. As a result, the reviewing court has no context in which to conduct a Strickland prejudice analysis. Because Pearl in effect provided no representation, the court cannot isolate his specific errors or omissions and evaluate their effect on the representation as a whole. The court here has no “representation as a whole” against which to evaluate Pearl’s errors.
The-second difference between this case and the typical Strickland case is that the trial court had notice that Stano lacked assistance of counsel. As I detail above, Pearl expressly communicated that fact to the court. The court, moreover, had no basis for questioning Pearl’s credibility or the truth of his representations.20 Consequently, the court had notice that under the circumstances of the case, Stano lacked *1178assistance of counsel. The court knew that Stano, if he were to proceed with his guilty pleas, would be proceeding without assistance of counsel. The court knew that Stano had not been provided with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts of his cases and that Pearl was nothing more than a mouthpiece for his client. In my view, these circumstances triggered the court’s “protecting duty” under Johnson, Gideon, and Cronic.21
As I outline above, in some cases, the circumstances surrounding a proceeding may be so extreme as to trigger a duty on the court’s part to intervene sua sponte. A primary example of this duty is grounded in the right to assistance of counsel, a fundamental due process right. Under Johnson and Gideon, the court’s protecting duty is triggered if an accused appears at a critical stage without an attorney. This protecting duty, however, extends beyond the situation where an accused lacks an attorney’s physical presence. In Holloway, the Court reaffirmed the application of this duty when an attorney represents to the court that he has a conflict of interest, and in Cronic the Court recognized that the court’s protecting duty can be triggered “on some occasions when although counsel is available to assist the accused during trial, the likelihood that any lawyer, even a fully competent one, could provide effective assistance is so small.... ” 466 U.S. at 659, 104 S.Ct. at 2047. As an example of such a case, the Court pointed to Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932). See Cronic, 466 U.S. at 660, 104 S.Ct. at 2047.
In Powell, the defendants were charged in Scottsboro, Alabama with a capital offense. At their arraignment, a state trial judge appointed “all the members of the bar,” collectively, to represent the defendants at their arraignment, anticipating that “the members of the bar would continue to help the defendants if no counsel appeared.” 287 U.S. at 49, 53 S.Ct. at 57. Six days later, the judge called the case for trial and asked if the parties were ready. The state responded that it was; no one responded for the defendants. A lawyer from Tennessee then addressed the court, indicating that he had come to Scottsboro on behalf of some people who were interested in the case. The judge allowed the Tennessee lawyer, with the assistance of the members of the bar, to help with the defendants’ cases, which proceeded directly to trial. The defendants were all found guilty and sentenced to death.
The Supreme Court reversed their convictions, holding that the proceedings denied the defendants the assistance of counsel demanded by the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. As the Court concluded, “during perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings against these defendants, ... when consultation, thorough-going investigation and preparation were vitally important, the defendants did not have the aid of counsel in any real sense.” Id. at 57, 53 S.Ct. at 59-60 (emphasis added). The Court stressed that no one “could say what a prompt and thorough-going investigation might disclose as to the facts”; but “[n]o attempt was made to investigate. No opportunity to do so was given.” Id. at 58, 53 S.Ct. at 60. The Court then ascribed to the trial judge the responsibility for ensuring that the defendants received meaningful representation, i.e., the process they were due. Having found that the trial judge had such a duty, the Court concluded: “that duty is not discharged by an assignment [of counsel] at *1179such a time or under such circumstances as to preclude the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.” Id. at 71, 53 S.Ct. at 65.
Powell and Cronic thus begin with the proposition that a criminal defendant has a due process right to assistance of counsel. From that proposition, the cases reason that, even though a figure resembling a lawyer might appear at a crucial proceeding on the defendant’s behalf, the circumstances surrounding the case might prevent the lawyer from providing “the aid of counsel in any real sense.” Powell, 287 U.S. at 57, 53 S.Ct. at 60. Because counsel is so essential to the defendant’s case, as well as to ensure the accuracy of the truth-seeking process, the absence of counsel “in any real sense” causes a “breakdown in the adversarial process.” Cronic, 466 U.S. at 662, 104 S.Ct. at 2049. That breakdown in the process, according to Powell and Cronic, triggers a duty on the trial judge’s part to protect the defendant’s right to assistance of counsel. Inaction on the judge’s part under such circumstances violates the court’s protecting duty — a duty that the due process clause requires the court to discharge. Under Powell and Cronic, a judge cannot simply sit back and let a proceeding continue if the circumstances are such that no lawyer, even a fully competent one, could provide effective assistance of counsel.22 The judge can discharge his duty, as I discuss, either by ensuring that the defendant waives his right to counsel or by postponing the proceeding until the defendant has counsel.
The circumstances of the present case, in my view, triggered the trial judge’s duty to intervene. As I discuss, this case is practically indistinguishable from a case where a defendant’s lawyer fails to appear altogether. Obviously, Pearl appeared at the proceeding, but that appearance was entirely insignificant from a legal perspective. True, Pearl was present in court with Stano, but Pearl had failed to fulfill the minimal requirements for assistance of counsel, and he so informed the trial court. To bring this case sharply into focus, I suggest that one consider Pearl as a cardboard cut-out figure or a Macy’s department store mannequin.
Given Pearl’s total failure to provide representation in any real sense, that is, given that Pearl was a mannequin, the Court’s conclusions in Powell apply here as well: “during perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings against th[is] defendant^]” i.e., the period during which Stano was deciding whether to plead guilty, “when consultation, thorough-going investigation and preparation were vitally important, the defendant ] did not have the aid of counsel in any real sense.” Powell, 287 U.S. at 57, 53 S.Ct. at 59-60. As in Powell and Holloway, moreover, the judge had notice of the petitioner’s situation. Indeed, the present case is indistinguishable from Holloway: just as in that case, the lawyer here explicitly informed the court of his inability to provide assistance of counsel. In my view, the conclusion is inescapable that the circumstances here triggered the trial court’s protecting duty.
Once that duty was triggered, as I discuss, the court could discharge its responsibilities in one of two ways: either by determining on the record that the petitioner *1180knowingly and intelligently waived his right to assistance of counsel or, absent such a waiver, by postponing the proceeding until the petitioner had counsel. Obviously, the trial court in this case did not postpone the proceeding. The court listened to Pearl’s statement, briefly questioned Stano, and then accepted his guilty pleas. If the court discharged its protecting duty, then, it could only have done so by determining on the record that Stano knowingly and intelligently waived his right to assistance of counsel.
Stano undeniably desired to go forward with his pleas. When a defendant lacks assistance of counsel, however, his mere desire to proceed does not relieve the court of its protecting duty. Rather, the court, in order to fulfill its responsibilities, must determine that the defendant’s desire to proceed constitutes a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel. The court makes this determination pursuant to the requirements of Faretta.
As I discussed above, Faretta and its progeny impose two requirements on the court in determining whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel: the court must ensure (1) that the defendant clearly and unequivocally asserts his right to proceed pro se; and (2) that the defendant understands the risks and disadvantages of self-representation. See Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1064-65 (citing Faretta, 422 U.S. at 835, 95 S.Ct. at 2541). In the present case, the court clearly failed to satisfy either of these requirements. Under the first requirement, the defendant “must do no more than state his request, either orally or in writing, unambiguously to the court so that no reasonable person can say that the request was not made.” Dorman v. Wainwright, 798 F.2d 1358, 1366 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 480 U.S. 951, 107 S.Ct. 1616, 94 L.Ed.2d 801 (1987). Stano obviously did not "state his request” in accordance with this standard. He submitted no written request to the court, and his oral statements at the plea hearing never even addressed the issue of self-representation. Following Pearl’s statement, the court asked Stano whether he cared “to comment on what Mr. Pearl has just said.” Stano responded: “No. I believe everything was quite sufficient that he said.” Stano then stated that he was “in agreement with what [Pearl] said.” One can hardly contend that these statements constituted a request to proceed pro se under Dorman. Even if one could so contend, a reasonable person could understandably say that no request was made. See Dorman, 798 F.2d at 1366. The first prong of the Faretta inquiry thus remained unsatisfied.
In addition, the court failed to discharge its responsibility under the second prong of the Faretta inquiry. Again, under Dor-man, “[i]n this Circuit, the court must ... conduct a hearing on the waiver of the right to counsel to determine whether the accused understands the risks of proceeding pro se.” Id. The court held no such hearing in the present case. And, although in some rare circumstances, this court has found a valid waiver under Faretta in the absence of such a hearing, see Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1068, the present case does not involve such circumstances.
Under the standards of Faretta and its progeny, therefore, the trial court failed to ensure that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Accordingly, the court failed to discharge its protecting responsibility under Johnson, Gideon, and Cronic. Absent a valid waiver of Stano’s right to counsel, the court could not accept his uncounseled pleas.
Under these circumstances, moreover, a per se rule of prejudice applies, thus requiring reversal of Stano’s convictions. I now discuss the applicability of this per se rule here.
B. Prejudice Per Se.
When the court is on notice at a critical stage of a criminal prosecution that the defendant is appearing without assistance of counsel — actually or, as here, constructively — the court must exercise its protecting duty either by determining, under Far-etta, that the defendant clearly asserts his right to proceed pro se and knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel or *1181by postponing the proceeding until the defendant has assistance of counsel. In the present case, the court did not postpone the proceeding nor did it determine, on the record, that the petitioner knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Accordingly, the case presents the elements under Cronic of a prima facie case for reversal of the petitioner’s convictions. The question then becomes whether a per se rule of prejudice applies — as in Gideon, for example — or whether the State should have an opportunity to rebut the petitioner’s ease.
In effect, this question has two parts: first, could the State prove that the petitioner properly waived his right to counsel even though the record fails to disclose the requirements of a valid waiver? And second, assuming the State cannot prove that point, can the State demonstrate that the petitioner was not prejudiced by the absence of assistance of counsel? I consider them in turn.
To reiterate, the court’s duty under Far-etta is two-fold: the court must ensure, first, that the defendant clearly and unequivocally asserts his right to self-representation and, second, that the defendant understands the disadvantages of proceeding pro se. As this court has explained, the court must hold a waiver hearing in order to satisfy this second requirement. See Dorman, 798 F.2d at 1366. In some rare circumstances, however, the state has proved that the defendant understood the disadvantages of self-representation even in the absence of a waiver hearing. See Fitzpatrick, 800 F.2d at 1068. In order to make such a showing, the state presents new evidence, at a collateral proceeding— concerning, for example, the defendant’s “background, experience, and conduct,” id. at 1065 — sufficient to demonstrate that the defendant possessed the necessary understanding.
I think the State would have difficulty making such a showing in the present case, but even if it could, it would be precluded by established caselaw from presenting evidence in a collateral proceeding to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the absence in the record of a clear assertion of the right to self-representation. This first element under Faretta establishes a prophylactic rule: it creates a formal notice requirement that cannot be satisfied by a showing after the fact. The first requirement, like the second requirement, is designed to ensure that the defendant has the state of mind necessary for a valid waiver of a constitutional right: the second requirement concerns the defendant’s understanding of the consequences of his waiver; and the first concerns his intention to proceed pro se. Although the second requirement can, in rare cases, be satisfied without a waiver hearing, by evidence pointing to an independent basis for the defendant’s understanding, the first requirement cannot be satisfied in that way. Even if the state could point to evidence suggesting that the defendant intended to proceed pro se — for example, evidence that the defendant had prepared his own case, perhaps even an authenticated note in his preparation materials declaring his intent to represent himself — the defendant could still have changed his mind before he appeared at the critical stage. In contrast, once the defendant has developed an understanding of the disadvantages of self-representation, absent some special circumstances, that understanding does not change. In addition, the first requirement also serves a notice function that has no relation to the defendant’s intention. That is, by asserting his right of self-representation, the defendant puts the court on notice of his desire to proceed pro se and triggers the court’s responsibility under the second prong of Faretta. Even if the state could prove that the defendant in fact intended to proceed pro se despite his failure to invoke that right, the state could not satisfy the concerns behind this notice requirement.
Given the nature of the Faretta requirements, and the status of the record in this case, the State could present no evidence to prove that, despite the record’s inadequacies, Stano in fact invoked his right to proceed pro se and waived his right to counsel. The record clearly indicates that Stano did not waive his right to counsel, and no evidence could be presented at an *1182evidentiary hearing to alter that conclusion. I now turn to the issue of prejudice under Johnson, Gideon, and Cronic.
As I discuss above, a per se rule of prejudice applies under these cases, and also under a variety of other cases that implicate a defendant’s right to counsel. The characteristic feature of these cases is that the defendant was denied assistance of counsel “in any real sense,” Powell, 287 U.S. at 57, 53 S.Ct. at 60. The rationale behind this rule is two-fold: first, the right to counsel is so important — to ensure that the defendant receives the process he is due — that the absence of counsel simply cannot be tolerated; second, conducting a prejudice inquiry in such a case is impractical and inefficient. The prosecution would be unable to present reliable proof in a collateral proceeding to show that, despite the transcript of the plea hearing, Stano was not unduly prejudiced. Nor could the prosecution demonstrate, based on that transcript, that the error was harmless.
In order to rebut the presumption of prejudice by presenting extrinsic evidence at a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, the prosecution would have to call to the witness stand an expert — a lawyer who had, in effect, done everything that Pearl failed to do. Prior to the hearing, the expert would have to investigate the facts of the cases (which would require full discovery of all of the circumstances relating to the confessions on which the State based its cases against Stano, see supra note 18), would have to research the applicable law, and would have to analyze the law in relation to the facts as required by Von Moltke. The expert would then have to testify that he would have told Stano that the State had a high probability of convicting him for both murders and that Stano should therefore plead guilty and subject himself to the death penalty at the hands of the trial judge.23 After the expert finished testifying, the prosecution would still have to show that Stano would have followed that advice. Even if the prosecution’s expert, after doing everything that Pearl failed to do, were to conclude that a high probability of conviction existed, which I doubt, how in the world could the prosecution show that Stano would have followed that advice? The prosecution could offer nothing but pure speculation.24 Based on such speculation alone, the reviewing court would clearly be unable to say that Stano was not prejudiced by the denial of counsel.
Nor could the prosecution demonstrate, based on the record, that the error was harmless. Harmless-error review is tied to the trial court record: the reviewing court isolates a given error and then determines, in effect, whether the recorded proceeding would have come out differently absent that error. If the answer is yes, then the error is not harmless. As I discuss above, when the error concerns the defense attorney’s total performance (i.e., his nonperformance), harmless-error analysis becomes practically impossible. The error is pervasive; it cannot be isolated; and its effects cannot be evaluated. If the reviewing court would be unable to conduct a prejudice inquiry even with the benefit of a lawyer’s expert testimony in a post-conviction evidentiary hearing, then it undeniably could not conduct such an inquiry based only on the cold record of the plea hearing without any extrinsic evidence. That record alone would provide the reviewing court no framework in which to reconstruct the plea hearing: the court could not isolate a given error and determine whether Stano would still have pled guilty even absent that error. As Justice O’Connor explained in Satterwhite, “[sjince the scope *1183of [such] a violation ... cannot be discerned from the record, any inquiry into its effect on the outcome of the case would be purely speculative.” Id. at 256, 108 S.Ct. at 1797; see Holloway, 435 U.S. at 490-91, 98 S.Ct. at 1182. To conduct a harmless-error review in such circumstances would force the reviewing court well beyond the narrow limits envisioned by the Chapman Court.
The present case attests to the wisdom behind this rule. The district court in fact held a post-conviction evidentiary hearing to consider Pearl’s representation. The court, however, treated Stano’s claim as an ineffective assistance claim under Strickland, putting the burden on Stano to prove prejudice. As a result, the State did not put an expert on the stand to prove that Stano would still have pled guilty even with the benefit of meaningful representation. At the hearing, Stano merely demonstrated the prejudice that was already apparent on the face of the plea hearing transcript. Stano’s habeas attorney presented expert testimony regarding the minimum requirements for assistance of counsel in the plea context, and Pearl testified himself about what he actually did know and did do while representing Stano — testimony that confirmed that his representation clearly failed to approximate the minimum standards for meaningful assistance. The State made no rebuttal. Indeed, it could not have done so without presenting expert testimony as I discuss. Consequently, the entire eviden-tiary hearing was irrelevant to the issue of prejudice: the prejudice question is whether Stano would have pled differently if he had the benefit of counsel in any real sense, and the evidence and argument at the post-conviction hearing did not help to answer that question. Even if the State had presented extrinsic evidence in the form of an expert’s testimony, it would still have to prove that Stano would have pled guilty with the benefit of meaningful assistance. Such a showing would be impossible. The reviewing court, quite simply, could never read Stano’s mind. And even if the court could read minds, its mind-reading would not address the fairness concerns underlying the per se rule of prejudice. As the Court declared in Glasser, “[t]he right to have the assistance of counsel is too fundamental and absolute to allow courts to indulge in nice calculations as to the amount of prejudice arising from its denial.” 315 U.S. at 75-76, 62 S.Ct. at 467.
In my view, the court today is bound by law and practical logic to presume prejudice in this case and set aside Stano’s convictions.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision to uphold the petitioner’s convictions in this case. In my view, the circumstances of this case triggered the trial court’s “protecting duty” under Johnson, Gideon, and Cronic. This protecting duty requires the court either to refuse to accept an uneounseled guilty plea or to ensure that the defendant wants to proceed pro se and knowingly and intelligently waives his right to counsel. By accepting Stano’s guilty pleas without meeting its protecting duty, the trial court erred. That error requires, as a matter of law, that the petitioner’s convictions be set aside.
In rejecting this analysis, the court today relies on the basic premise that a defendant can plead guilty at any time, even if his lawyer is entirely unprepared. In other words, prepared counsel is not a necessary condition for a guilty plea. As I show, this premise is faulty. The Supreme Court, as well as this court, has explicitly stated that, in the context of a plea hearing, the lawyer must provide the defendant with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts of his case. See Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 721, 68 S.Ct. 316, 322, 92 L.Ed. 309 (1948); McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459, 466, 89 S.Ct. 1166, 1171, 22 L.Ed.2d 418 (1969); Wofford v. Wainwright, 748 F.2d 1505, 1508 (11th Cir.1984); Harris v. Oliver, 645 F.2d 327, 329 (5th Cir. Unit B May 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1109, 102 S.Ct. 687, 70 L.Ed.2d 650 (1981); Walker v. Caldwell, 476 F.2d 213, 218 (5th Cir.1973). Clearly, Stano’s attorney failed to fulfill the minimal requirements of these standards, thus leaving Stano to proceed, in *1184effect, without counsel. I am satisfied that, were it not for the majority’s blind adherence to its major premise, the court today would agree.

. The majority implies that Stano's failure to move the court for leave to withdraw his guilty pleas prior to the imposition of sentence rendered the court’s failure to intervene harmless. As my discussion makes clear, what transpired after Stano's plea hearing has no bearing on whether the court failed to discharge its duty to intervene at the plea hearing.

. I refer throughout this opinion to the right to assistance of counsel as guaranteed explicitly in the sixth amendment and by implication in the fourteenth amendment.

. Indeed, the majority explicitly recognizes the importance of the right to counsel in the context of a guilty plea. The majority states that counsel is "especially important” to a defendant who pleads guilty, and quotes the Supreme Court's statement that, for a guilty plea, " '[cjounsel is needed so that the accused may know precisely what he is doing, so that he is fully aware of the prospect of going to jail or prison, and so that he is treated fairly by the prosecution.’" Ante at 1140 (quoting Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25, 34, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 2011, 32 L.Ed.2d 530 (1972)).

. In fact, the judge may have a duty to intervene slid sponte in such a case even if the defense attorney fails to raise an objection. Accordingly, the judge’s failure to intervene would constitute Caldwell error. Under the contemporaneous objection rules in some jurisdictions, however, the absence of an objection might create a procedural default that could prevent a federal habeas court from entertaining the defendant’s Caldwell claim. See Cooper v. Wainwright, 807 F.2d 881, 886-87 (11th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1050, 107 S.Ct. 2183, 95 L.Ed.2d 839 (1987).

. Note, however, that Rule 44(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandates that the trial court, when faced with multiple defendants who are either jointly charged or tried and are represented by the same counsel, "shall promptly inquire with respect to such joint representation and shall personally advise each defendant of the right to the effective assistance of counsel ... the court shall take such measures as may be appropriate to protect each defendant’s right to counsel." Thus, the trial court’s “protecting duty" is codified in some conflict of interest situations.

. The Standards for Criminal Justice provide:
(a) The court should not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere from a defendant without first addressing the defendant personally in open court and determining that the defendant understands:
(i) the nature and elements of the offense to which the plea is offered;
(ii) the maximum possible sentence on the charge, including that possible from consecutive sentences, and the mandatory minimum sentence, if any, on the charge, or of any special circumstances affecting probation or release from incarceration;
(iii) that, if the defendant has been previously convicted of an offense and the offense to which the defendant has offered to *1162plead is one for which a different or additional punishment is authorized by reason of the previous conviction or other factors, the fact of the previous conviction or other factors may be established after the plea, thereby subjecting the defendant to such different or additional punishment;
(iv) that by pleading guilty the defendant waives the right to a speedy and public trial, including the right to trial by jury; the right to insist at a trial that the prosecution establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the right to testify at a trial and the right not to testify at a trial; the right at a trial to be confronted by the witnesses against the defendant, to present witnesses in the defendant’s behalf, and to have compulsory process in securing their attendance; and
(v) that by pleading guilty the defendant waives the right to object to the sufficiency of the charging papers to state an offense and to evidence allegedly obtained in violation of constitutional rights, except to the extent that motions concerning such matters may already have been made and ruled upon, or unless the right of appeal on such issues is reserved.
(b) If the court is in doubt about whether the defendant comprehends his or her rights and the other matters of which notice is required to be supplied in accordance with this standard, the defendant should be asked to repeat to the court in his or her own words the information about such rights and the other matters, or the court should take such other steps as may be necessary to assure itself that the guilty plea is entered with complete understanding of the consequences.
(c) If the defendant is represented by a lawyer, the court should not accept the plea where it appears the defendant has not had the effective assistance of counsel.
Standards for Criminal Justice § 14-1.4 (1982) (emphasis added).
The federal courts have a similar obligation not to accept involuntary pleas pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 11, which provides in pertinent part:
(c) Advice to Defendant. Before accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, the following:
(1) the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered, the mandatory minimum penalty provided by law, if any, and the maximum penalty provided by law, including the effect of any special parole or supervised release term, the fact that the court is required to consider any applicable sentencing guidelines but may depart from those guidelines under some circumstances, and, when applicable, that the court may also order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the offense; and
(2) if the defendant is not represented by an attorney, that the defendant has the right to be represented by an attorney at every stage of the proceeding and, if necessary, one will by appointed to represent the defendant; and
(3) that the defendant has the right to plead not guilty or to persist in that plea if it has already been made, the right to be tried by a jury and at that trial the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, and the right against compelled self-incrimination; and
(4) that if a plea of guilty or nolo conten-dere is accepted by the court there will not be a further trial of any kind, so that by pleading guilty or nolo contendere the defendant waives the right to a trial; and
(5) if the court intends to question the defendant under oath, on the record, and in the presence of counsel about the offense to which the defendant has pleaded, that the defendant’s answers may later by used against the defendant in a prosecution for perjury or false statement.
(d)Insuring That the Plea is Voluntary. The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, determining that the plea is voluntary and not the result of force or threats or of promises apart from a plea agreement. The court shall also inquire as to whether the defendant's willingness to plead guilty or nolo contendere results from prior discussions between the attorney for the government and the defendant or the defendant’s attorney.

. According to the majority, the trial court is not obliged to make such a determination where the defendant, having obtained a lawyer, tenders a plea of guilty without his attorney's presence — either in fact or constructively. In other words, Faretta and its progeny do not apply in the guilty plea context. The majority reaches this conclusion by observing that "the Faretta inquiry is reserved for advising a defendant of the disadvantages of proceeding pro se at trial.” Ante at 1149. According to the majority, the Faretta inquiry "is tailored to elicit whether the defendant is capable of conducting his own defense.... By definition, a defendant who pleads guilty relinquishes his defense.” Ante at 1149. Alternatively, assuming Faretta's applicability in the guilty plea context, the trial court’s duty to determine whether the defendant intends to waive counsel and proceed pro se is not triggered unless the defendant " 'clearly and unequivocally assert[s] the desire to represent himself.' " Ante at 1144 (quoting Cross v. United States, 893 F.2d 1287, 1290 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 138, 112 L.Ed.2d 105 (1990)). In this case, the majority finds no such clear and unequivocal assertion by the petitioner; therefore, the trial court had no duty to intervene.
To me, the majority’s position is absurd. Suppose Stano’s lawyer, Mr. Pearl, had failed to show up for the plea hearing. In that event, Stano would quite literally not have had a lawyer. Would the majority hold that the trial judge had no duty to inquire whether Stano wished to waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se? I think not.

. I refer throughout the opinion to both the trial court record and the trial court transcript. The trial court record, of course, includes the transcript, if any, of the proceeding. When referring to the trial court transcript, I include, in addition to the transcript of the proceeding, any exhibits that may have been introduced into evidence at the proceeding.

. The defendant faces a different burden of proof in an attorney error case, where, for example, the defendant claims that his attorney failed to develop an alibi defense or that his attorney, in a death penalty case, failed to develop mitigating evidence. In that kind of case, the defendant must show, under Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-88, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, that the attorney’s representation was deficient and also that the deficiency prejudiced the defendant. In the Strickland type of case, unlike in a trial judge error case, the trial transcript is invariably silent concerning the deficiency of the attorney’s performance. The transcript itself, therefore, rarely yields a presumption of prejudice. Rather, the defendant bears the burden of presenting the error, which occurred off the record, in a petition for collateral review.
In a judge error case, such as the one before us, the attorney’s inability to provide representation in any real sense is apparent from the record of the trial court proceeding. The court, under those circumstances, has notice of the attorney's inability, and the court’s protecting duty is thus triggered. Accordingly, if the court fails to discharge its protecting duty, the constitutional error, which is apparent on the face of the trial court transcript, is ascribable to the *1166court. In that situation, the trial court record itself yields a presumption of prejudice.

. Boykin itself, however, involved a direct appeal from the defendant's conviction. The defendant pled guilty to a murder charge before a state trial judge, and the judge sentenced him to death. An Alabama statute provided for an automatic direct appeal of a capital case to the state supreme court and required the supreme court to search the record for plain error. On direct appeal, the state supreme court upheld the sentence, but several justices dissented on the ground that the record of the plea hearing failed to show that the defendant had intelligently and knowingly pleaded guilty. In their view, the trial judge committed constitutional error in accepting the guilty plea without an affirmative showing, on the record, that the plea was voluntarily and knowingly entered. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to address that issue and, agreeing with the dissenting Alabama justices, reversed the state supreme court's decision. The Court concluded that a defendant’s plea of guilty cannot stand if "the record does not disclose that the defendant voluntarily and understanding^ entered his pleaf ] of guilty.” Boykin, 395 U.S. at 244, 89 S.Ct. at 1713 (quoting state supreme court dissent).
In his dissent in Boykin, Justice Harlan characterized the Court's decision as follows: "The Court thus in effect fastens upon the States, as a matter of federal constitutional law, the rigid prophylactic requirements of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure." Id. at 245, 89 S.Ct. at 1713. Justice Harlan characterized the rule applied in Boykin as a prophylactic: under that rule, once the Court concluded that the record failed to disclose that the plea was voluntary, it conclusively presumed prejudice and vacated the conviction; the Court gave the state no opportunity to rebut the defendant's case by showing that the plea was in fact made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. As Justice Harlan observed, "[t]he Court’s reversal is therefore predicated entirely upon the failure of the arraigning state judge to make an ‘adequate’ record." Id. at 247, 89 S.Ct. at 1714.
Most Boykin claims now come to federal court in the context of a habeas proceeding. In that context, the federal courts are not limited to the record of the plea hearing. The district court can augment that record by conducting an evidentiary hearing. The lower federal courts have therefore interpreted the Boykin holding differently than Justice Harlan interpreted it. As the Sixth Circuit explained in Roddy v. Black, 516 F.2d 1380, 1383-84 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 226, 46 L.Ed.2d 147 (1975):
Boykin requires that no guilty plea be accepted “without an affirmative showing that it was intelligent and voluntary.” Boykin mandates that a conviction based on a guilty plea be reversed unless "the prosecution spread[s] on the record the prerequisites of a valid waiver” of the constitutional rights which a defendant surrenders by pleading guilty.
It is good procedure, therefore, for a state judge to conduct a careful inquiry into the defendant’s understanding of the nature and *1167consequences of his plea. A comprehensive on-the-record inquiry into this matter "forestalls the spin-off of collateral proceedings that seek to probe murky memories.”
If the discussion between defendant and trial judge at the time of a plea’s acceptance leaves doubt as to whether a plea was in fact voluntary and intelligent, however, a defendant is not automatically entitled to a reversal of his conviction. Rather, in that circumstance if a defendant argues in a post-conviction proceeding that his plea was entered without his consent or without an understanding of the plea’s nature and consequences, Boykin places a burden on the State to prove the contrary. A habeas court may not "presume a waiver of [a defendant’s] federal rights from a silent record.” The State must prove that the defendant’s guilty plea was voluntary and intelligent, and to do so it may introduce evidence extrinsic to the transcript of the plea’s acceptance.
In the face of an inadequate transcript at the time of a guilty plea’s acceptance, the State must make a clear and convincing showing that the plea was in fact knowingly and understandingly entered.
(Quoting Boykin; footnotes and citations omitted.) If the state makes this showing, it "obviate[s] the necessity of vacating the plea.” Id. at 1384 n. 5 (quoting Todd v. Lockhart, 490 F.2d 626, 628 (8th Cir.1974)). Our own circuit has similarly interpreted the requirements under Boykin in post-conviction proceedings. See McChesney v. Henderson, 482 F.2d 1101, 1106 (5th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1146, 94 S.Ct. 901, 39 L.Ed.2d 102 (1974).

. In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), this court adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to October 1, 1981.

. This analysis, however, applies only to the second requirement under this court’s interpretation of Faretta — that of a waiver hearing. The state may not rebut a claim that the trial court allowed the defendant to represent himself although the defendant never clearly and unequivocally invoked his right to proceed pro se under the first Faretta requirement. I discuss this issue in more detail below. See infra at pp. 1182-1183.

. Judge Hatchett explained that, in using the term "deprivation,” he meant "a claim of denial of counsel," as opposed to "a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,” which would require a showing of prejudice pursuant to the standard in Strickland. See Crutchfield, 803 F.2d at 1108.

. Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.220(d)(1) provides, in pertinent part: "At any time after the filing of the indictment or information the defendant may take the deposition upon oral examination of any person who may have information relevant to the offense charged."
As I note, the State’s cases against Stano rested almost exclusively on Stano’s confessions. In my view, Pearl, in order to provide Stano meaningful representation, had to depose the police officers who took Stano’s confessions and anyone else having knowledge of the circumstances under which the confessions were taken. Pearl also had to depose every other witness whose testimony was necessary to establish the corpus delicti of the case.

. The majority also suggests that Pearl rendered effective assistance of counsel by “fully appris[ing Stano] of the charges against him" and by informing Stano that he might be sentenced to death. Ante at 1142. This is tantamount to an attorney, on the eve of trial, informing his client that he has done no work to *1175prepare his client's defense and that it is likely that the defendant will be convicted and sentenced for twenty years. Clearly, as shown below, this is not effective assistance of counsel.

. Of course, this urging was assistance, but only in part. Pearl, knowing that he could provide Stano no representation at the plea hearing and that he was thus providing Stano no real assistance of counsel, should have told the court — pursuant to his fundamental duty as an officer of the court — not to accept Stano's pleas unless the court (1) informed Stano that he was in fact proceeding pro se; or (2) asked Stano whether he wanted to waive his right to counsel and proceed pro se; and (3) if Stano said yes, ensured on the record that Stano made a valid waiver; or (4) if Stano said no, postponed the hearing.

. As I discuss infra note 20, the prosecution failed to present any evidence at the plea hearing that corroborated Stano’s confessions.

. The majority characterizes this case as one in which the defendant has preempted his attorney’s strategy. This is not that case. Here Pearl had no strategy to preempt, as he candidly admitted, because he had made no independent analysis of the key issues in the cases. Relying on this mischaracterization, the majority cites Mitchell v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 886 (11th Cir.1985), for the proposition that a defendant cannot claim ineffective assistance of counsel after he preempts his counsel’s strategy. The Mitchell court stated, however, that
[w]hen a defendant preempts his attorney’s strategy by insisting that a different defense be followed, no claim of ineffectiveness can be made. Nonetheless, "[ijnformed evaluation of potential defenses to criminal charges and meaningful discussion with one’s client of the realities of his case are cornerstones of effective assistance of counsel.”
Id. at 889 (citations omitted).
In Mitchell, the court held that an attorney who had conducted "an independent evaluation of the usefulness of character witnesses” with the defendant and his father was not acting ineffectively when he did not investigate the case further. The court held that ‘"strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable precisely to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support the limitations on investigation.' ” Id. (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690-91, 104 S.Ct. at 2066).
In this case, Pearl’s failure independently to investigate the admissability of Stano's confessions and the strength of the State’s evidence was not a reasonably supported limitation on investigation; indeed, Pearl admitted that he was unprepared to aid Stano at the plea hearing. Thus, Mitchell is of no help to the majority; instead, Mitchell clarifies Pearl’s investigative duty and highlights his failure to discharge this duty.
The other cases the majority cites in support of its contention — that a defendant who preempts his attorney’s strategy cannot later claim ineffective assistance — also relied upon the attorney's independent investigation of key operative facts as a basis for denying the defendant’s claim. See, e.g., Foster v. Strickland, 707 F.2d 1339, 1343-44 (11th Cir.1983) ("[The attorney] did not fail to discover information that was necessary for the competent defense of [the defendant].”); Tafero v. Wainwright, 796 F.2d 1314, 1320 (11th Cir.1986) ("A lawyer ... must first evaluate the potential avenues of investigation and then advise the client of their merit. A strategy of silence may be adopted only after a reasonable investigation for mitigating evidence or a reasonable decision that an investigation would be fruitless.” (Citations omitted.)

.As I discuss above, see supra at p. 1159, that kind of case involves an attorney error that is not evident on the face of the trial court transcript, rather than an error that does appear on the transcript’s face and thus implicates a protecting duty on the court’s part. In attorney *1177error cases, therefore, the defendant has the burden of proof on the prejudice issue.

. Indeed, the record of the plea hearing supports the truth of Pearl’s statement to the court. Pearl told the court that he had not received discovery from the State and had undertaken no independent investigation into the facts. The only information that Pearl had was that Stano thought the State could prove its cases. Pearl knew, moreover, that the State’s cases rested on Stano’s confessions. Again, Pearl had conducted no independent investigation into the confessions. He had not explored whether they could be suppressed; he did not know whether the State had any evidence corroborating the confessions. (Under Florida law, moreover, an uncorroborated "confession alone may not be relied upon to establish the corpus delicti.” Atkins v. Florida, 452 So.2d 529, 532 (Fla.1984); see Mitchell v. State, 45 Fla. 76, 33 So. 1009 (1903)). All Pearl knew was, as he told the court, that Stano thought the confessions were good: "[Stano] assures me that those statements were made voluntarily, they were made competently, and intelligently after warning of his rights and that, therefore, there does not exist a good possibility that either of his admissions could be suppressed on a hearing.” Stano's opinion, without more, obviously did not satisfy Pearl's duty to undertake an independent investigation of the cases and render informed advice. And Pearl knew this; thus, he made his statement to the court.
The remainder of the plea hearing supported the accuracy of Pearl's statement and also, given Pearl’s statement, should have alarmed the court. A careful examination of the plea hearing reveals that the prosecutor presented no evidence whatsoever that corroborated Stano's confessions. With respect to the murder of Mary Kathleen Muldoon, the prosecutor submitted the following evidence:
(1)a complaint affidavit filed by Lt. Donald Goods of the New Smyrna Beach Police Department, which states the factual circumstances of the murder;
(2) a death certificate and medical examiner's report;
(3) a police lab report on the bullet removed from Muldoon’s head;
(4) a series of photographs, including photos of the crime scene and autopsy photographs showing the bullet and the head wound caused by the bullet;
(5) a police offense report describing a witness’ identification of Muldoon’s body at the morgue; and
(6) Stano’s confession.
The first five items of evidence presented the physical details of the murder. The evidence showed where the murder was committed, demonstrated how it was done, and established that Muldoon was the victim and was indeed murdered. None of this evidence, however, tied Stano to the crime. Only the sixth piece of evidence — Stano’s confession — did that. Without the confession, the prosecutor had no evidence linking Stano to the murder. In short, the prosecutor relied on the confession, standing alone without any corroborating evidence, to establish the corpus delicti.
The same is true with respect to the prosecution’s case against Stano for the Bickrest murder. The prosecutor presented the following evidence for that charge:
(1) Sgt. Paul Crow’s summary affidavit;
(2) a Volusia County Sheriff Department’s report, outlining the facts of the murder;
(3) a medical examiner's autopsy report;
(4) a series of photographs, including an autopsy photograph of the victim, pictures of the crime scene, and photographs of vegetation and a shoe; and
(5) Stano’s confession.
Again, the first four items of evidence merely established the- physical details of the crime. None of the items, however, linked Stano to the murder. The last item was Stano’s confession, which provided the sole basis for the corpus delicti in the State’s case against Stano for the Bickrest murder as well.

. As I note above, the court does not assume this duty in every case where a defendant rejects the advice of his attorney. If that advice is given competently, and it constitutes effective assistance of counsel, then the defendant has been "informed" as due process requires, and his decision to reject his lawyer's advice triggers no responsibility on the court's part. That case involves no waiver of the defendant's right to assistance of counsel. He has received such assistance, and his decision to proceed with a guilty plea despite his lawyer’s advice does not constitute a waiver of that right.
Nor does the court automatically assume this duty in every case where an attorney is ineffective. The circumstances of the case must be such as to give the court notice of the attorney’s ineffectiveness in order to trigger the court’s responsibility to intervene. If the circumstances of the case provide no indication of the attorney's ineffectiveness, then the court's duty to intervene remains untriggered.

. As a practical matter, judges rarely allow proceedings to continue once they have notice that an attorney cannot provide effective assistance of counsel. For this reason, Cronic claims, although often raised, hardly ever succeed. Frequently, an attorney informs the court at the commencement of a trial that he is unprepared to proceed and moves for a continuance. The court determines that the attorney’s statement is not credible and denies the continuance. Indeed, in the context of a criminal case, the defense attorney has obvious reason to stall, and an experienced trial judge might well be skeptical of last-minute requests to continue a trial. In the majority of cases, moreover, the trial record supports the judge’s decision: the lawyer provides competent representation at trial. Of course, if subsequent events at trial support the credibility of the lawyer’s initial statement of unpreparedness, the situation may become entirely different. Those events put the judge on notice that the lawyer in fact cannot provide effective assistance, and notice of that fact triggers the judge’s obligation to intervene. If the judge fails to intervene, then the attorney’s ineffectiveness becomes judge error, and the presumption of prejudice attaches. See Cronic, 466 U.S. at 648, 104 S.Ct. at 2039; Powell, 287 U.S. at 45, 53 S.Ct. at 55; Willis, 838 F.2d at 1521-22.

. The lawyer, of course, would also tell Stano that he would be subjecting himself to the death penalty at the hands of a judge who had already indicated he would give Stano the death penalty if he were convicted.

. The prosecution, moreover, could not prove this element under an objective, reasonable man standard. The decision to plead guilty is a personal one that can be assessed only under a subjective standard. The prosecution would therefore have to call Stano to the witness stand and have him testify that, based on the fully informed lawyer’s advice, he would still have pled guilty. Given that Stano has brought this collateral attack for the express purpose of attacking his guilty pleas, it is very unlikely that he would provide such testimony.