I AGREE WITH THAT. 
BUT THERE'S NO REASON TO HEAR 
FROM HIM. 
THE INMATE AND HAVE HIM RESPOND. 
WHEN DID THIS BECOME FINAL TO 
HIM? 
THIS IS TROUBLING ME. 
WHAT IF HE'D WRITTEN ANOTHER 
LETTER TO YOU BEFORE THE CASE 
WAS RELINQUISHED, WOULD YOU HAVE 
RELINQUISHED IT? 
WE WENT FOR THE JUDGE IN THE LOW 
REPORT. 
>> HE SHOULD BE AT THE POINT WHERE 
ONCE THE DEFENDANT IN FACT SAYS, 
I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE 
POSTCONVICTION THEY'LL SAY, I 
DON'T WANT TO HAVE AN ATTORNEY 
ANYMORE, ONCE THE TRIAL DOES 
MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT WAS 
KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY IT WILL BE 
THE END OF IT. 
>> BUT IT'S NOT, WE HAVE AN 
APPEAL. 
>> THE APPEAL OF THE CORRELATOR 
DECISION. 
MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE THE POINT. 
WHERE HE WON'T ACCEPT ANY MORE 
COMING IN NOW, BAFFLING 
BACK-AND-FORTH. 
>> WELL, MY PROPOSED RULE IS IF 
THE WAIVER IS NOT FINAL, MEANING 
THE APPEAL IS NOT OVER, YOU MAY 
TAKE IT BACK. 
ONE TIME. 
THAT'S IT. 
IF IT IS FINAL, I HAVEN'T GOT TO 
THAT PART OF IT, IF IT IS 
FINAL YOU CAN'T TAKE IT BACK 
AFTER SOME EXCEPTIONAL 
CIRCUMSTANCE OR EXTRAORDINARY 
CIRCUMSTANCE. 

I DON'T HAVE ANY QUIBBLE WITH 
THAT RULE. 
>> ARE YOU ARGUING -- 
[INAUDIBLE] 
THAT THE RULE WE HAVE COME UP 
WHY SHOULDN'T WE ENFORCE THAT 
ONE. 
>> THE WAY WE ENFORCE THE RULE 
IS THAT IT ISN'T FINAL YET. 2 
HIS WAIVER IS NOT VITAL. 
IT'S ON APPEAL. 
AND HE CAN SPEAK. 
THAT'S RIGHT FROM THE RULE. 
IF HE CAN SPEAK, WHAT CAN HE 
SAY? 
WHAT YOU ARE INTERPRETING THE 
RULE IS THE ONLY THING HE CAN 
SAY IF HE SPEAKS, I STILL WANT 
TO WAIVE. 
>> YOU ARE TREATING IT -- 
[INAUDIBLE] 
>> YOU GOT ME ON CIVIL RULES. 
>> IT WASN'T THE PURPOSE OF THE 
RULE BUT WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE 
COURT WE HAD NOTHING. 
IT WAS NOTHING IN PLACE, NO WAY 
TO LOOK AT THESE TO TRY TO 
PROTECT SOCIETY AND THE 
INDIVIDUAL. 
AND THE RULES ADOPTED NOT FOR 
THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING 
ADDITIONAL CHANGES OF MIND, BUT 
TO VIEW WHAT'S IN THE RECORD AND 
TO MAKE A DETERMINATION , AS 
JUSTICE QUINCE SAID, THAT THIS 
WAS A VALID WAIVER, NOT TO ALLOW 
ANY ADDITIONAL. 
FOR THIS GOING BACK AND FORTH. 
BUT AGAIN, WE UNDERSTAND THAT 
CERTAINLY THESE SITUATIONS CAN 
COME UP FROM TIME TO TIME. 
THE RULING YOU HAVE TO ADMIT WAS 

DESIGNED AS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE 
FOR WHAT HAS OCCURRED, NOT TO 
PERMIT A VACILLATION BACK AND 
FORTH. 
>> JUST TO BE SURE THE RECORD 
SUPPORTS THE WAIVER, I AGREE 
WITH THAT. 
BUT THEN YOU CAN HEAR FROM THE 
PETITION, WHY? 
I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THAT WOULD BE 
THERE FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY 
SPEAK. 
>> AS A PRACTICAL ANSWER, I'M 
NOT SURE IT WAS PUT IN THERE FOR 
A PARTICULAR REASON. 
IT WAS TO ALLOW PARTICIPATION IN 
THE PROCESS I THINK, BUT NOT TO 3 
COVER WHAT YOU ARE TALKING 
ABOUT. 
IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR THAT. 
YOU MAY DO IT, BUT IT WASN'T 
DESIGNED FOR THAT. 
>> LET ME MAKE ONE FINAL POINT. 
WITH THE COMPARATIVE BULLET LEAD 
ANALYSIS ISSUE THAT'S IN THIS 
CASE, THEY LET HIM WAIVE IN THE 
UPHELD THE LOWER DEPENDENT. 
YOU CAN FOLLOW SUCCESSOR WITH 
CDLA RIGHT NOW. 
IT'S IN THIS CASE, BUT IN WIRED 
AND I CAN SUPPLEMENT EXTRA 
AUTHORITY THEY DEMANDED TO 
FOLLOW SUCCESSOR IF APPROPRIATE. 
>> I THOUGHT -- HE AGREED TO 
MATCH HIS DISCHARGE COUNSEL, BUT 
HE WANTED TO WAIVE ALL 
POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS. 
>> HIS FIRST POSTCONVICTION 
PROCEEDING, THAT'S RIGHT. 
>> YOU'RE INTERPRETING THE WAIVER 
TO BE ONLY FOR THAT ONE 
PROCEEDING. 

AFTER DOING THAT, CAN STILL 
FOLLOW SUCCESSOR IS WHAT YOU'RE 
SAYING. 
>> THIS NEW FILING OF BRADY 
COMES UP, WHY COULDN'T HE? 
NOW I'VE DISCOVERED I WAS FRAMED 
WITH THIS EVIDENCE, WHEN I WANTED 
TO FILE A SUCCESSOR. 
I DON'T SEE WHY HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE 
TO DO THAT. 
>> PER SE. 
>> WELL, THAT'S FINE. 
>> AT THE POSTCONVICTION 
PROCEEDING. 
IT DOESN'T SAY FIRST 
POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDING. 
>> WHICH IS WHAT? 
>> IN TERMS OF HOW WE WANT TO 
INTERPRET THIS TO HAVE IT 
ORDERLY, THERE IS SOMETHING TO 
BE SAID THAT AGAIN THIS IDEA OF 
KEEPING OF THE SYSTEM. 
THE FACT THAT THIS IS STILL ON 4 
IT FIRST POSTCONVICTION AND THAT 
IT'S BEEN DONE, IT'S BEEN 
RETRACTED BEFORE A WAIVER IS 
FINAL ON APPEAL SEEMS LIKE A 
DIFFERENT SITUATION. 
IF YOU SAY NO, WE WENT THROUGH THIS 
WHOLE PROCEDURE TO JUST LET THEM 
WAIVE THIS ONE, BUT HE CAN COME 
BACK AND KEEP FAILING, THAT 
WOULD REALLY BE AN ABUSE. 
>> YOU KNOW, HE CAN'T COME BACK 
AND KEEP FILING. 
THE DEFEAT DISCOVERS BROAD, WHY 
WOULD HE NOT BE ABLE TO FILE 
THAT? 
IT SEEMS WE WOULD CUT THEM OFF 
FOREVER IF HE HAS FOUND 
SOMETHING THAT REALLY -- 
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO COME UP WITH 

A LOT ABOUT WHICH ONES YOU COULD 
RAISE IF THERE IS TRULY A CLAIM 
OF INNOCENCE. 
>> THE 3851 RULE SAYS YOU CAN 
RAISE A SUCCESSOR. 
YOU KNOW, IT SAYS THINGS WHO 
COULD NOT UP TO AVERT IN THE 
EXCESS OF DUE DILIGENCE AT THIS 
TIME THE THOUGHT OF GOVERNMENT, 
THINGS LIKE THAT. 
SO IT'S PRETTY RESTRAINED. 
>> I THINK IT REALLY MIGHT BE AN 
ISSUE WE MIGHT HAVE TO ADDRESS 
THAT ANOTHER DAY. 
BUT YOU ARE WELL INTO YOUR 
REBUTTAL IF YOU WANT TO SAY 
ANYTHING -- TO SAVE THE TIME YOU 
HAVE LEFT. 
>> THANKS. 
>> MAY I PLEASE THE COURT. 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL AKE. 
THIS COURT IS HERE TO ADDRESS THE 
ISSUE OF WHETHER IT'S A 
CHOCOLATE ABUSE IS DEPRESSION 
AND FIGHTING OF MR. TREASE'S ALL 
COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS AND 
VOLUNTARY INTELLIGENT KNOWING 
WAIVER. 
>> CAN HE DO THAT? 
BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THIS CASE 
INVOLVING CDLA WHERE THE 5 
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS ADMITTED 
IT'S USE, THEY CALL IT JUNK 
SCIENCE, BUT DISCREDITED 
TESTIMONY AND COMPARATIVE 
LEAD ANALYSIS. 
CAN HE BRING UP HIMSELF -- I 
MEAN -- 
>> THAT WAS PART OF HIS DEMENTED 
CONVICTION. 
>> I'M ASKING YOU SOMETHING 
ELSE. 

WE CONTEMPLATE SOMEONE WHO SAID 
THEY WOULD WAIVE ALL 
POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS, CAN 
BRING UP SOMETHING ELSE THAT 
COMES UP IF THEY DISCOVERED 
EVIDENCE? 
>> I BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING WAS 
TO COME UP NEXT YEAR AND THE 
COURT AFFIRMED EVERYTHING TAKING 
PLACE IN THE STATE, I DON'T KNOW IF 
THERE'S A BAR OR IN THE CASE LAW 
IN THAT IT STANDS. 
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR CANDOR. 
SO IN THIS CASE, THIS IS TO ME 
DIFFERENT THAN JAMES. 
DO YOU AGREE THAT AT LEAST IT'S A 
NICE POSTURE DIFFERENCE. 
>> POSTURE LEADS DIFFERENT, BUT 
I THINK THE RATIONALE TERM STILL 
APPLIES, THAT A SIMPLE CHANGING 
OF THE MIND OF THE DEFENDANT IS 
INSUFFICIENT TO UNDO THAT PRIOR 
WAIVER. 
>> AND JAMES WASN'T A 
TWO-YEAR GAP? 
>> WELL, WHAT HAPPENED TO JAMES 
WAS WHAT TOOK PLACE WAS 
PREDICTABLE. 
THE RULE CAME ABOUT DURING THE 
JAMES THING. 
AND WHAT HAPPENED IS HE 
DISCHARGED HIS COUNCIL AND WAIVES 
EVERYTHING PRIOR TO THERE EVER 
BEING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. 
AND HE WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO 
APPEAL THAT DUE TO NOTHING NEVER 
HAPPENING BECAUSE THE RULE WAS NOT 
IN EFFECT. 
HAD THE RULE BEEN IN EFFECT IT 6 
WOULD'VE AUTOMATICALLY BEEN 
APPEALED UP THAT TIME. 
IN 2001, WHEN THE COURT DID THE 

HEARING, SUBSECTION 
83.51 IT WOULD'VE, TO THIS 
COURT. 
OBVIOUSLY THAT RULE CAME ABOUT A 
THIRD END OF DECEMBER 06, JUY 
07 WHEN IT WAS EFFECTED. 
>> WHAT'S THE HARM OTHER THAN -- 
IN TERMS OF THE INTEGRITY 
COMPARED TO THE INTEGRITY TO THE 
PROCESS, THAT WHEN THERE IS A 
PENDING APPEAL, LIKE THERE IS 
HERE, AND THE RECORD IS ALREADY 
UP HERE, WE HAVE AN EVIDENTIARY 
HEARING, THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT 
GUILT, WHICH COULD, YOU 
KNOW, I HAVE A LOOK AT THE 
RECORD SO I DON'T KNOW, THEY MAY 
BE COMPLETELY BOGUS AS FAR AS 
WHAT IS BEING PRESENTED. 
I DON'T MEAN BOGUS, I SHOULDN'T 
SAY BOGUS. 
I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT AND THE 
APPEAL FOR THE WAIVERS. 
AND WHAT WE ASK FOR RESPONSE 
FROM THE DEFENDANT SHE SAYS NO I 
DON'T WANT TO WAIVE. 
AND WHAT HE IS SUGGESTING IS WE 
SHOULD BE ABLE TO RETRACT IT 
ONCE AND THAT IS THE END OF IT. 
IS THERE SUCH A -- I MEAN, WE 
DON'T HAVE THAT MANY OF THESE 
CASES IT IS THAT SUCH A 
DECEPTION OF THE SYSTEM VERSUS 
GETTING TO MAKE SURE THE 
CONVICTION HAS INTEGRITY AND 
WHEN WE ARE READY TO EXECUTE 
THIS PERSON, THAT WE CAN FEEL 
WITH SOME LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE 
THAT THERE HAS BEEN, YOU KNOW, 
JUSTICE IN ALL ASPECTS HAVE BEEN 
LIKE THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE 
CAN SAY WITH CONFIDENCE THAT 

THIS PERSON IS READY FOR 
EXECUTION. 
>> I BELIEVE BY MR. TREASE'S 
ACTION HE HAS BEEN MANIPULATING 
THE SYSTEM AND DELAYING THE 7 
PROCEEDINGS QUITE A BIT. 
IN THIS CASE WE'RE RIGHT, WE DID 
HAVE THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING. 
COUNSEL AT THE TIME HE WAS 
REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AND HE 
FILED A BRIEF. 
HE THEN INDICATED HE WANTED TO 
WAIVE. 
>> DO WE KNOW IF HE'S MANIPULATING 
IT OR HE DOES HAVE MENTAL 
ILLNESS THAT IS CAUSING THESE 
PROBLEMS? 
AGAIN, WE SEE AND BELIEVE ME, WE 
HAVE -- I COULD NAME ON A COUPLE OF 
HANDS SOME OF THESE FREQUENT 
FILERS OF THEIR OWN MOTIONS. 
I DON'T THINK MR. TREASE IS IN 
THAT CATEGORY. 
HE'S WRITTEN A LETTER SAYING, I 
DO NOT WANT TO WAIVE MY 
POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDING. 
>> I DON'T BELIEVE THE MENTAL 
ILLNESS EVIDENCE IS THAT STRONG. 
I BELIEVE HE HAS CERTAINLY BEEN 
DOING THIS WITH AN EYE TOWARDS 
DRAGGING THIS OUT AS LONG AS HE 
CAN AND HAS SUCCEEDED IN THAT. 
I MEAN, WE HAD A HEARING IN 2001 
AND HERE WE ARE IN 2010, 
BASICALLY IN THE SAME POINT IN 
TIME. 
>> WELL, IN BETWEEN THAT IT 
WAS A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING. 
>> RIGHT. 
BUT AT SOME POINT THERE HAS TO 
BE FINALITY IN THIS. 
IN NUMEROUS CASES THEREAFTER 

WHEN A DEFENDANT IS CONFIDENT 
AND WAIVER OF THAT THIS COURT 
WILL UPHOLD THAT WAIVER AND THEN 
AND JAMES IS THAT SIMPLY 
CHANGING YOUR MIND IS NOT 
SUFFICIENT TO GO BACK AND 
UNDERMINE THEIR PREVIOUS WAIVER. 
AND IF THIS COURT ADOPTS A 
RULE YOU STRAIGHT TO PROMULGATE, 
THIS IS GOING TO LEAD TO MORE 
INSTANCE OF ABUSE. 
I CAN SEE DEFENDANTS DOING THIS 
ALL THE TIME BASICALLY CHARGING 8 
THE POST CONVICTION PROCEEDINGS 
OUT. 
>> BUT IF THEY ACTUALLY HAVE THE 
RIGHT FILTER BY SUCCESSIVE 
POSTCONVICTION, WHICH AGAIN I 
DON'T REMEMBER ANY OF THESE 
DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE TRULY SAID I 
WANT TO GIVE UP RIGHTS, AND ARE 
DOING THAT. 
SO THAT QUITE SURPRISED ME. 
USUALLY THE SO-CALLED VOLUNTEERS 
REALLY DO WANT TO BE EXECUTED. 
AND MANY HAVE ACTUALLY UNDER THE 
LAST EIGHT YEARS, THERE HAVE 
BEEN -- 
>> I THINK JAMES IS THE ONLY 
EXCEPTION OF ALL THESE WAIVER 
CASES. 
>> SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A 
SITUATION WHERE, YOU KNOW, 
THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED ABOUT 
MAKING A STATEMENT THAT THIS IS, 
YOU KNOW, THAT WE ARE PROLONGING 
THE CASE AS OPPOSED TO JUST 
TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN 
SOMEONE SAYS THEY DO NOT WANT TO 
WASTE THEIR PROCEEDING, THEY'RE 
POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS, THAT 
WE LOOK AND SAY NO, IT'S TOO 

LATE. 
BUT YOU CAN FILE SOMETHING IN 
THE FUTURE IF YOU WANT. 
I DON'T LIKE THAT IDEA EITHER. 
>> NO, AND I'M NOT SURE -- WELL, 
I'M SURE THAT DEFENDANT PRO SE 
CAN PUT THIS WHETHER IT WILL 
SURVIVE ANYWHERE I DON'T KNOW. 
BUT I'M SURE THEY CAN CERTAINLY 
FILE SOMETHING. 
AND WHETHER IT WILL BE TIME-BARRED 
WE CAN ARGUE THAT IT'S BEEN 
WAIVED, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING 
WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A GOOD 
ATTITUDE FOR THAT EXAMPLE IN THE 
SQUARE BEFORE SO WE KNOW WHAT 
WOULD HAPPEN UNDER THAT 
SCENARIO. 
>> I WOULD JUST REPEAT THAT THE 
TIME COMES FOR EXECUTION AND ALL 
OF THIS STARTS COMING UP AGAIN 9 
AND THERE'S THAT MEANS THAT YOU 
HAVE WHEN SOMETHING HASN'T BEEN 
FULLY, YOU KNOW, PUT TO REST. 
>> I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT, 
YOUR HONOR. 
WE WOULD SUBMIT IN THIS CASE BY 
GOING THROUGH THE DUROCHER 
HEARING IN MAKING A WAIVER IN 
FRONT OF THE TRIAL COURT 
YESTERDAY HELD TO THAT WE HAVE 
TO HAVE SOME KIND OF FINALITY 
HERE OR OTHERWISE IT WILL 
JUST LEAD TO PEOPLE CHANGING 
THEIR MIND AND THEY'LL SAY -- 
[INAUDIBLE] 
>> I CHANGED MY MIND AGAIN THAT 
SUDDENLY THAT SOMEHOW CHANGES 
OUR PREVIEW OF THE CASE. 
AND THAT BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A 
FINAL DETERMINATION YET BECAUSE 
OF THE APPEAL, MAKES HIM READY 

ABLE TO CHANGE HIS MIND AGAIN. 
>> YOUR HONOR, THE DEBATES OF 
THE RULE IS TO REVIEW THE 
DUROCHER HEARING AND WE'LL FIND 
OUT WHETHER THERE'S EVIDENCE TO 
SUPPORT HIS FINDING THAT IT'S A 
VOLUNTARY KNOWING WAIVER. 
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THIS COURT 
IS DOING ON THE APPEAL PROCESS 
IN THESE WAIVER CASES IS TO 
DETERMINE WHETHER WHAT THEY KNOW 
IS VOLUNTARY INTELLIGENT 
WAIVER. 
AND IN THIS CASE THE OFFICIAL 
THE TRIAL COURT'S ABUSE TO THE 
DISCUSSION. 
WE CANNOT IN THIS CASE. 
>> IN THE DUROCHER COURT, WAS 
MR. TREASE'S COMPETENCY CALLED 
INTO QUESTION AND HAVE THERE 
BEEN ANY COMPETENCIES 
DETERMINATION IN THE LAST FEW 
YEARS? 
>> ONE OF HIS EXPERTS AT THE 
EVIDENTIARY HEARING, DR. CROWN 
ON ACCOMMODATING 2006. 
DR. MARION TESTIFIED THAT HE'D 
BEEN TESTING FOR COMPETENCY 
BECAUSE HE RELIED ON A DIFFERENT 10 
DOCTOR'S DETERMINATION WHO FOUND 
HIM COMPETENT AT THE TIME OF 
TRIAL. 
OF COURSE, DR. MARION DIDN'T 
INDICATE HE WAS INCOMPETENT. 
NOW HIS ATTORNEY IS DISCHARGED 
ATTORNEY NESTOR AT THE 
HEARING COULD MENTION A TERM I 
THINK HE SAID IT QUESTIONS ABOUT 
HIS COMPETENCY, BUT IN THE SAME 
BREATH HE SAID MR. TREASE IS AN 
INTELLIGENT MAN AND UNDERSTANDS WHAT 
IS GOING ON IN THIS CASE. 

HE NEVER FILED A MOTION FOR 
DISCOMPETENCY AND THERE'S 
THAT THING IT SHOWS HE IS AS 
COMPETENT IN THIS REGARD AND DID 
UNDERSTAND THE NOTION OF WHAT 
HE'S DOING WHEN HE DID THIS 
WAIVER. 
THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO SHOW. 
UNDER THIS CASE OF LAW AND 
LAWSON AND CASTRO THEY HAVE TO 
BUILD YOU SHOULD DO SOME KIND 
THAT WOULD REBUT. 
WE HAD COMPETENCY PRIOR TO TRIAL 
AND THEN IN 2001 WHEN THEY DID 
THE DUROCHER HEARING BACK IN 
2000 WHEN THE COURT FOUND HIM 
COMPETENT THEN TOO. 
HE'S ALWAYS BEEN COMPETENT AND 
THERE'S RECORDS AND THE 
POSTCONVICTION DATE BACK IN THE 
70'S HE WAS FOUND COMPETENT WHEN 
HE WAS GETTING DISCHARGED FROM 
THE MARINE CORPS. 
SO THERE'S NEVER BEEN A SINGLE 
DOCTOR TO INDICATE HE'S NOT 
COMPETENT. 
>> THE MARINE CORPS WHEN HE WAS 
DISCHARGED THAT WAS WHEN HE WAS 
17? 
>> YES. 
>> I DON'T KNOW THE COMPETENCY 
WAS CALLED INTO QUESTION. 
>> IT WAS FOR HIS DISCHARGE 
PROCEEDINGS I BELIEVE. 
>> WHY WAS HE DISCHARGED FROM 
THE MARINES? 
>> HE CUT ANOTHER INMATE. 11 
>> WHAT WAS THEIR DIAGNOSIS 
ABOUT HIS MENTAL STATUS? 
>> WHEN HE ATTENDED THE MARINE 
CORPS THERE WERE THREE DIAGNOSIS. 
I BELIEVE ONE WAS PARANOID 

DELUSIONS. 
>> I MEAN, HE'S HAD A LONG 
HISTORY OF DOCUMENTED MENTAL 
ILLNESS. 
I MEAN THAT'S DIFFERENT HE CAN 
BE COMPETENT, BUT CAN YOU NOT BE 
COMPETENT AND MENTALLY ILL? 
>> I WOULD DEBATE THAT HE HAS A 
LONG HISTORY OF MENTAL ILLNESS 
OTHER THAN THE MARINE CORPS. 
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY HISTORY OF 
MENTAL ILLNESS THAT HE HAS THAT 
HE'D EVER HAD TREATED. 
HE OWNED COMPUTER BUSINESS FOR SIX 
YEARS SELLING COMPUTER CHIPS. 
HE WAS FUNCTIONING OUT IN THE 
EVERYDAY WORLD. 
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY KIND 
OF DOCUMENTED HISTORY OF HIM 
BEING IN ANY KIND OF MENTAL 
INSTITUTIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE 
THAT. 
>> IT WAS JUST AN ABERRATION WHEN 
HE WAS 17? 
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. 
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM READING IT HE 
CUT THIS GUY AS A FAVOR TO HIM 
BECAUSE HE WANTED TO GET OUT OF 
THE MARINE CORPS. 
I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE DETAILS 
OF THAT INCIDENT, BUT HE WAS 
DISCHARGED. 
I FORGET THE TERMINOLOGY, IT 
WASN'T AN HONORABLE DISCHARGE, 
BUT WAS NOT DISHONORABLE. 
IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE AND IT WAS 
THE RESULT FOR MY UNDERSTANDING 
A FAVOR TO THIS INDIVIDUAL TO 
TRY TO GET HIM OUT OF THE MARINE 
CORPS. 
WE HAVE A VERY GOOD COLLOQUY BY 
JUDGE BENNETT AS FLORIDA NOTED 

HERE IT IS INDICATING HE IS 
READING EVERYTHING, INCLUDING 12 
HIS STATE ASSAULT 
POSTCONVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND 
THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT WAS NOT 
A KNOWING AND VOLUNTARY WAIVER 
AND I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE FACT 
HE IS SIMPLY HIS MIND UNDER 
JAMES IS INSUFFICIENT. 
AND WE WOULD ASK THIS COURT TO 
DISMISS HIS APPEAL WITH 
PREJUDICE. 
THANK YOU. 
>> I BELIEVE YOU'VE GOT ABOUT 45 
SECONDS. 
IF THERE'S ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT 
YOU NEED TO -- 
>> JUST ONE THING. 
IT'S NOT WHETHER THEY SUPPORT 
THE FINDING OF THE JOBS OR NOT. 
THEY CAN ABUSE DISCRETION BY NOT 
FOLLOWING THE RULE. 
AND IN THIS CASE, ANY 
PREHEARING. 
AFTER THAT WHEN HE WENT TO 
COUNSEL FOR THE STATE SAID TO 
THE JUDGE, IF THE COURT HAD SAID 
THIS IS PAGE 39 OF VOLUME ONE OF 
THE SUPPLEMENTAL IF THEY HAVE 
ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING 
COMPETENCY, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER 
YOU'RE PREPARED TO APPOINT 
EXPERTS TO GO OUT THERE TO 
DETERMINE COMPETENCY AT THIS 
POINT. 
SO THAT WAS PRESENTED AS AN 
ISSUE TO THE COURT. 
THE COURT DIDN'T DO THAT. 
AND THEN MR. DUNN, IN TALKING TO 
THE COURT AT THE END OF HIS 
PRESENTATION, SAID THE MARINES 
HAVE DOCUMENTED HIS BRAIN 

DAMAGE, YOU SUFFERED TRAUMA 
GROWING UP. 
HE NEEDS MEDICATION. 
YET WITH THE MEDICATION THIS WOULDN'T 
BE HAPPENING. 
HE'S NOT READY TO GIVE UP HIS 
APPEALS. 
HE NEEDS TO BE MEDICATED. 
HE NEEDS TO ENSURE HE HAS A 
CHANCE TO DO WHAT IS DONE AND 13 
I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS 
COMPETENCY. 
SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT AT THAT 
POINT IN TIME IT WAS AN ABUSE OF 
DISCRETION FOR THE JUDGE NOT TO 
FOLLOW THE RULE IN A POINT TO 
EXPERTS. 
I DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO THE 
LOWER COURT AND DO THAT. 
I THINK THE WAIVER OF THE WAIVER 
IS SUFFICIENT AT THIS POINT IN 
TIME. 
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I'LL 
ENTERTAIN THEM, BUT I'VE GOT 
ABOUT EIGHT SECONDS. 
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
THE COURT WILL TAKE ITS MORNING 
RECESS FOR TEN MINUTES. 
>> PLEASE RISE.