failure-to-protect claim. To convince the jury that Wallace and Gallinger violated the Eighth Amendment by failing to stop him from overdosing, Barrett needed to prove that they were deliberately indifferent to an objectively serious risk of harm. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834-37, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Cavalieri v. Shepard, 321 F.3d 616, 620 (7th Cir.2003). Barrett presented his own testimony, and testimony from a corroborating witness, cross-examined the defendants, and submitted documentary evidence. Faced with the parties’ conflicting evidence, however, the jury chose to credit the guards’ version of events. Given Barrett’s competent performance at trial, he was not prejudiced by the lack of counsel. See Romanelli v. Suliene, 615 F.3d 847, 853 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. 1 . To the extent that Barrett
holding that the defendants right to confrontation under crawford was not violated where the analyst who testified concerning dna evidence testified to his own opinion based on tests run by another analyst holding that a fiduciary corporation was a purchaser within the meaning of  12a2 and was entitled to bring suit on its own behalf or on behalf of its clients holding court denied party a fundamental right to due process by failing to allow him to present witnesses or testify on his own behalf holding prior testimony was admissible where the witness who first testified during a suppression hearing was murdered after he testified where the defendant was represented by counsel who had extensively crossexamined the witness holding that refusal to recruit counsel did not prejudice plaintiff who testified on his own behalf crossexamined witnesses and introduced exhibits