466 U.S. 668, 688-90, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Barring any statements or actions from the defendant indicating disagreement with counsel or the desire to testify, the trial court is neither required to sua sponte address a silent defendant and inquire whether the defendant knowingly and intentionally waived the right to testify, nor ensure that the defendant has waived the right on the record. Joelson, 7 F.3d at 177. See also United States v. Ortiz, 82 F.3d 1066, 1069 n. 8 (D.C.Cir.1996) (noting the agreement of the First, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits that the trial court does not have a duty to sua sponte conduct an on-the-record colloquy regarding waiver); Knox v. Morris, 908 F.2d 973 (table), 1990 WL 106789, at *1 (6th Cir. July 30, 1990) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Yarbrough, 896 F.2d 554
holding that trial court has no duty to establish waiver on record holding that a trial judge is under no duty to affirmatively establish a defendants proficiency in english where no evidence on the issue is presented holding that record did not establish knowing waiver holding that appellate court may presume trial court took judicial no tice of its own record and that trial court record in that case supported prejudice element holding that the court has no duty to search for triable issues