they would have been inevitably discovered. Id. at 255-56. We noted that we have the authority to order such a remand pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 28.05, subd. 2, and 29.04, subd. 11. Licari, 659 N.W.2d at 256. Giving Krause a full evidentiary hearing with appointed counsel remedies the district court’s violation of his due process rights. If, after the evidentiary hearing, the district court finds that Krause’s right to counsel was violated, the district court should then vacate the convictions and order a new trial. On the o 2, 53 (1999) (concluding “that the defendant forfeited his right to counsel by his persistent pattern of threatening, abusive, obstreperous, and uncoop erative behavior with successive assigned counsel”); State v. Carruthers, 35 S.W.3d 516, 550 (Tenn.2000) (<HOLDING>). Consistent with that case law, we conclude
holding that a defendant forfeited his right to counsel when he verbally abused and refused to communicate with a succession of attorneys holding that defendant forfeited his right to counsel by verbally abusing and threatening to harm his attorney threatening to sue his attorney on four different occasions and attempting to persuade his attorney to engage in unethical conduct holding that a habeas petitioner was not entitled to relief from a state courts determination that he had forfeited his right to counsel by physically assaulting his attorney and threatening to put a contract on his attorneys life holding that a defendant was not constitutionally entitled to counsel at a probation revocation hearing when he admitted to violating the terms of his probation and refused the district courts offer to appoint counsel holding that trial court need not appoint an interpreter where counsel indicated that he could communicate with defendant and that defendant could understand questions and answers