the spot an alternative proposal once the judge changed his mind about his original, proposed wording. That opportunity to strategize and to speak for himself is a Faretta right protected by McKaskle. C. Respondents argue that despite the conference’s importance, Frantz’s exclusion was constitutional because Lamb consulted Frantz and accurately repeated Frantz’s desire not to give the jury the 911 tape. But for reasons we explain below, faithfully repeating Frantz’s opinion is not sufficient under McKaskle, unless Frantz consented to have Lamb speak for him at the conference. Absent consent by Frantz for Lamb to participate in his stead, whether or not Lamb accurately relayed Frantz’s position on the tape is not dispositive of Frantz’s claim. See generally McDermott, 64 F.3d at 1453-54 (<HOLDING>). Far-etta grants defendants the right not only
holding that defendants prior arrests were insufficient to establish that defendant was aware of his right to appointed counsel even though he told dea officers that he understood his rights holding that a defendants rights were violated by his exclusion from sidebar conferences even though he did not allege that he would have conducted the conference differently than did the standby attorney who participated holding that the former husband failed to show the required prejudice where he did not testify that he would have acted differently during the period of delay if he had known the former wife would assert the childrens right to child support holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to find that the defendant participated in the conspiracy even though he did not have a relationship with all of his fellow coconspirators holding that even though defendant stated he did not read and discuss psr with his counsel he could not show any error that affected his substantial rights