concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I concur in the opinion of the majority insofar as it holds (1) that Kimmel did not receive the benefit of his constitutional right to legal representation at his trial, (2) that under the circumstances of this case a knowing and intelligent waiver 1 of the right to counsel was required, and (3) that the record does not show that Kimmel made a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right prior to trial. I dissent from that portion of the opinion which orders a limited remand to allow the district court to supplement the record with “further details” of Kimmel’s background, experience, and conduct.

In this case, the majority employs a limited remand procedure which lacks the support of precedent and reason, and which directly conflicts with the uniform and unquestioned practice in this circuit. When the record on appeal from a conviction in the district court fails to show that the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel before proceeding to trial, our practice has been to reverse the conviction and order a new trial. The majority departs from our heretofore unquestioned procedure without discussing or distinguishing any of the cases in which it has been applied. Instead, in support of its use of an extraordinary and unprecedented limited remand procedure (which permits the record to be supplemented with facts not before the district court at the time the waiver was accepted), the majority relies on two habeas corpus cases from our circuit, and a case involving unique circumstances from the Second Circuit. None of those cases is applicable here.

If we are to break with precedent and blaze a new trial in the area of waiver of the right to counsel, I would much prefer that we address and resolve a question of continued uncertainty in this area of the law: whether the district court must formally advise the defendant of the risks of self-representation, the nature of the charges, and the consequences of conviction before accepting a waiver of the right to counsel, and in the absence of a formal warning, whether the conviction of a defendant who represents himself must be reversed. I believe that we should now state explicitly what we have strongly suggested in the past. First, when a defendant seeks to waive his right to counsel, the court must formally advise him on the record of the matters described above before accepting his waiver, and second, if the court fails to do so, the conviction will be reversed. Such a rule is both prudent and necessary to assure the protection of the fundamental constitutional right here involved. However, accepting as I must that such a per se rule is not yet the law in this circuit, I nevertheless disagree with the majority’s characterization of the showing required to establish a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel — as well as with the limited remand procedure employed in this case.

The Limited Remand

After holding clearly and unequivocally that the record fails to show a knowing and intelligent waiver by Kimmel of his right to *724 counsel, 2 the majority remands the case to allow the district court to “supplement the record” with “details” or background information. As the majority admits, we have never previously remanded a case to the district court for this purpose. To the contrary, where as here, the record on appeal fails to show that the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel in the district court, the procedure uniformly followed in this circuit has been to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. United States v. Crowhurst, 596 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir. 1979); United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Gillings, 568 F.2d 1307, 1310 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 436 U.S. 919 , 98 S.Ct. 2267 , 56 L.Ed.2d 760 (1978); United States v. Dujanovic, 486 F.2d 182, 188 (9th Cir. 1973). Rather than follow this well established precedent, the majority concluded that it is not bound by our prior decisions and orders ex nihiio a limited remand. In so doing, it allows the district court to supplemcnt the record with facts which were not on the record at the time the district court determined that the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver — facts which, as I will explain later, could not have established a valid waiver even if adduced before the district court prior to the time it accepted the waiver — facts which certainly cannot now be used post facto to support a waiver. The only reason offered by the majority for its failure to follow our well established precedent is that “the limited remand is a prudential device which until recently has been used quite sparingly in this circuit.” 3

The majority opinion relies on three cases that are clearly inapplicable here: Rhinehart v. Gunn, 661 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1981), Davis v. Morris, 657 F.2d 1104 (9th Cir. 1981), and Tompkins v. United States, 623 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1980). In Davis , the defendant petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court after being convicted in state court. The state court judge *725 had refused to allow the defendant to represent himself at a time when defendants in California had no such right, i.e., before the Supreme Court’s decision in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975). Because the defendant had no right to represent himself at the time of his trial, the trial judge had no reason to explain on the record the reasons for denying the defendant’s request to proceed pro se. This court in Davis did not remand, as does the majority in this case, so that further “details or other evidence” regarding the defendant’s “background, experience, or conduct” could be developed by the trial court to justify acceptance of a waiver “where the existing record does not . . . adequately support a finding of an intelligent waiver.” Rather, we remanded to allow the state trial judge to state on the record his reasons for denying the defendant’s request to proceed pro se.

Similarly, in Rhinehart v. Gunn, 661 F.2d 738 (9th Cir. 1981), we employed a limited remand to allow a state court trial judge to state his reasons on the record for denying the defendant’s request to proceed pro se when the denial was made before the Supreme Court’s decision in Farretta v. California. In Rhinehart, we explained why a remand to allow a state trial judge to explain on the record the reasons for his decision is appropriate in the setting of a habeas corpus proceeding:

Rhinehart v. Gunn, 661 F.2d 738, 739-40 (9th Cir. 1981) (emphasis added).

We afford a certain deference to state court findings, as we did in Davis and Rhinehart , when those findings are attacked collaterally in federal court; obviously, the same notions of federalism are not implicated in this appeal. Moreover, in both Davis and Rhinehart the remand was designed to allow a state judge to explain his reasons for denying a request to proceed pro se when that denial was made before the defendants in those cases had a recognized right to represent themselves. 4 In neither case did we remand the matter to allow the trial court to supplement a record with details of the defendant’s background, experience and conduct. Although the majority opinion cites Rhinehart v. Gunn and Davis v. Morris as support for the limited remand procedure it employs in this case, it subsequently admits that there is no precedent in this circuit for such a procedure. As the majority states, “[tjhis case is the first in which we have used a limited remand to supplement a record that does not show a knowing and intelligent waiver.”

Although in the Second Circuit case of Tompkins v. United States, 623 F.2d 824 (2d *726 Cir. 1980), relied on by the majority, the court did remand to allow for an evidentiary hearing on the question of waiver, the court stated that the facts in that case justified the use of an exceptional procedure. The opinion itself is notable in that it contains strongly worded but clearly inconsistent statements on the question of whether the defendant had deliberately attempted to create a confusing record on the issue of waiver. After stating “the facts before us simply do not reveal a deliberate plot to manipulate the court by alternatively requesting, then waiving counsel,” the court went on to hold:

Id. at 829 (emphasis added). The Second Circuit also noted that the issue of the defendant’s deliberate attempt to manipulate the record was first raised on appeal, that “a direct criminal appeal is rarely remanded to the trial court for additional fact finding” and that the remand in Tompkins was a limited exception to the rule it normally follows in such cases. The majority in this case states that its use of the limited remand procedure is based on “reasons similar to those in Tompkins," but the majority fails to state what those reasons are and the record reflects none. Thus, Tompkins offers no support for the majority’s use of the limited remand procedure here.

There are sound reasons why we reverse and require a new trial, rather than remand for further evidence, when a waiver of the right to counsel is not established on the record. We need only discuss one here. In United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 1978), we held that the determination of the validity of a waiver of counsel must be made before the defendant proceeds to trial and cannot be reconstructed post facto. In Aponte , the district court failed to conduct a proper inquiry before trial on two matters: whether the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel and whether he was competent to stand trial. The district court subsequently interrupted the trial to make those determinations after Aponte’s advisory counsel had moved for a mistrial on the ground that the defendant was not competent to stand trial. The trial judge heard the testimony of three psychiatrists and ruled that the defendant was competent to waive counsel and to stand trial. The court allowed the trial to continue and Aponte was convicted.

We upheld the district court’s finding that Aponte was competent to stand trial but reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial because of the district court’s failure to make a proper determination before trial as to whether Aponte made a knowing and intelligent waiver of counsel:

Id. at 1250 (emphasis added).

We concluded that “Aponte’s conviction must be reversed because the record does not disclose that he knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel before electing to represent himself.” Id. at 1249. We explained that the purpose of requiring the determination to be made before trial was that if the district court delayed the determination until after the trial had commenced, there was a danger that the trial judge might impermissibly consider the defendant’s post-waiver conduct in judging the validity of the waiver.

The district court in this case failed to determine before trial whether Kimmel made a knowing and intelligent waiver of *727 the right to counsel as required by Aponte . It merely accepted Kimmel’s decision without making any of the inquiries which would have allowed it to decide whether the waiver was knowing and intelligent. The reasons which led us, in Aponte , to proscribe post facto inquiries are especially pertinent here. In this case the danger that the trial court will “impermissibly consider” the defendant’s conduct after the purported waiver is obvious. Here, the majority allows a post facto examination not only after the trial has been completed, but after the court has heard post-trial motions brought by Kimmel acting pro se. Thus, the limited remand presents the danger that the district court may impermissibly consider factors not before the court at the time the waiver was accepted, the very danger that our holding in Aponte was intended to prevent.

In light of the uniform procedure of this court of reversing the conviction and remanding for a new trial when the record in a direct appeal does not demonstrate a valid waiver, I do not believe we should adopt a contrary procedure for Kimmel. His case does not differ materially from our previous cases involving waiver of the right to counsel; even if it did, an unreasoned departure from the rule we have uniformly followed would be unwarranted. If the majority feels compelled to treat Kimmel’s appeal differently from all others, it should at the very least discuss and distinguish the cases in which we have reversed convictions and explain the reasons for its choosing not to follow them. In my view, the procedure we have uniformly utilized is a sound one and is binding upon us here.

For the reasons stated above, I would follow our well established precedent, reverse the conviction, and remand for a new trial.

Proof of Waiver

I also disagree with the majority concerning the showing which is required in order to establish that a waiver of counsel is “knowing and intelligent.” As I have noted previously, it is regrettably not yet the law in this circuit that the district court must formally advise the defendant of the risks of self-representation, the nature of the charges, and the consequences of conviction before the court can determine that the defendant’s waiver of counsel is knowing and intelligent. However, we have repeatedly warned district courts that “the only practical means to protect against ... a reversal” is to establish on the record that the defendant has expressly been made aware of the risks and consequences of a waiver of the right to counsel. United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 1978); see also United States v. Bird, 621 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1980). In United States v. Dujanovic, 486 F.2d 182, 188 (9th Cir. 1973), we termed the use of that procedure “a minimal requirement” for the acceptance of a waiver of counsel by the district court.

Here, all the district court did was to accept the defendant’s decision to dispense with counsel. It neither expressly advised him of the risks and consequences nor engaged in any colloquy concerning the defendant’s knowledge or understanding thereof. 5 The majority states that in the absence of a specific waiver inquiry, the court may determine the validity of a waiver by considering the defendant’s background, experience, and conduct. While these factors may be relevant in determining whether the defendant was capable of understanding a warning or other information given him by the court, they cannot establish that the defendant was expressly made aware of the risks and consequences of his waiver.

The majority erroneously relies on our opinion in Cooley v. United States, 501 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1123 , 95 S.Ct. 809 , 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975), as support for its statement that in the absence of a specific inquiry by the court into the defendant’s awareness of the risks of self-representation, the court “must consult the particular facts and circumstances sur *728 rounding that case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused.” In fact, Cooley stands for the wholly different proposition that where the court has expressly made the defendant aware of the risks of self-representation, the defendant’s “background, experience, and conduct” may be considered in determining whether he understood and “appreciated” the court’s warning.

A review of our decisions relating to the waiver of counsel issue, decisions which the majority simply dismisses without discussion, demonstrates that the defendant must be expressly made aware of the risks and consequences of his waiver of counsel in order to render a waiver of that right knowing and intelligent. 6 In United States v. Dujanovic, 486 F.2d 182 (9th Cir. 1973), the defendant refused the services of a public defender, who was nonetheless directed to sit at the defendant’s side during the trial in order to offer advice when requested and to preserve the record for appeal. In holding that the record did not demonstrate that the defendant competently and intelligently waived his right to counsel, we stated:

Id. at 186 .

While in Dujanovic we said that the above statement was only admonitory, see id. at 188 n.2, we held that because the defendant was not expressly advised of the risks and consequences of his waiver of the right to counsel, the waiver was not made competently and intelligently. Id. at 188 . We noted “that at no time during the waiver proceedings did the district judge personally advise the appellant of .. . the consequences of his choice of self-representation” and that the record in that case did not show that the defendant was advised by the trial court or “any other person” as to the nature of the charges and possible penalties. Id. Thus, our concern in Dujanovic was with whether the defendant was expressly advised of the risks of self-representation, the nature of the charges and the consequences of conviction.

The holding in Dujanovic was subsequently applied in Cooley, 501 F.2d at 1249 . The defendant claimed that it was per se reversible error for the trial court not to personally address the defendant in court regarding the risks of self-representation. While we refused to adopt a per se rule, we found that the record demonstrated that the defendant was expressly made aware by the court of the risks and consequences of his decision to waive counsel:

Id. at 1250 & n.2.

Therefore, in Cooley we had no occasion to, and did not, say that an inquiry into the defendant’s background, experience, and conduct was sufficient where the defendant was not expressly advised of the risks and consequences of proceeding without counsel.

*729 Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court and this court have made it clear that the defendant must expressly be made aware of the risks and consequences of self-representation. After our decisions in Dujanovic and Cooley , the Supreme Court held in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975) that a defendant has a constitutional right to represent himself in a state proceeding. In discussing whether the defendant in Faretta “had knowingly and intelligently” waived his right to counsel and demanded that he represent himself, the Court stated that the defendant “should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with his eyes wide open.” Id. at 2539. The trial judge in Faretta informed the defendant on the record that he would be expected to comply with the usual practices and procedures of the court, that the defendant was making a mistake in representing himself, and that a lawyer would be more familiar with the “ground rules” of trial practice. The Supreme Court concluded that under these circumstances the court should have allowed the defendant to represent himself.

In a series of post-Faretta decisions, we have emphasized that the critical issue in determining the validity of a waiver is whether the defendant was expressly made aware of the risks of self-representation. Normally, this requires a specific explanation by the trial judge, although failure to do so may not constitute reversible error if the record clearly demonstrates that the defendant was “fully informed” of those risks by some other person. See United States v. Crowhurst, 596 F.2d 389, 391 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Cooley v. United States, 501 F.2d at 1252 ); United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247, 1250 (9th Cir. 1978). As we said in Crowhurst :

Id. at 390-91.

In Crowhurst the court had specifically informed the defendant on the record of the disadvantages of proceeding pro se; however, such warning was found insufficient to support a valid waiver where the defendant was not also specifically informed of the charges and the possible penalties. Crowhurst emphasizes the point that a valid waiver of counsel cannot be made by a defendant who has not been specifically made aware of the risks and consequences of his choice to forego the assistance of counsel. To the same effect is our holding in United States v. Bird, 621 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1980), another post-Faretta case in which we reversed a conviction for failure to expressly advise the defendant of the risks and consequences of his waiver of counsel. See also United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1978) (stating that only practical means to avoid reversal is to make a record demonstrating that the defendant was made aware of the risks and consequences of waiver). 7

*730 In light of our post-Faretta holdings, it is not sufficient in the absence of a specific inquiry on the record merely to look at the defendant’s “background, experience, and conduct” to determine if the defendant made a knowing and intelligent waiver. At the very least the record must show that the defendant was expressly made aware of the risks of self-representation, the nature of the charges, and the consequences of conviction. 8

Application to the Facts in This Case

We are considering here the waiver of a fundamental constitutional right. We are required to indulge in every reasonable presumption against its waiver. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). It is therefore particularly surprising that the majority utilizes an unprecedented limited remand procedure and orders a general inquiry into the background, experience, and conduct of a defendant like Kimmel. The record shows that Kimmel is an individual who was suffering from both mental and physical disabilities. His primary defense was that Hawaii was not part of the United States. He claimed that he was a citizen of the sovereign nation of Hawaii and therefore was not subject to the laws of the United States. The record indicates that his use of drugs was part of a religion of his own making, that he believed that he was Special Ambassador of the Sovereign Creator of the Universe, that he refused to believe that the Shah of Iran was dead, and that he sought to subpoena Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, and various other high government officials in support of his defense. Further, although Kimmel is approximately thirty years old, the trial judge noted that he looked to be a man of about eighty. Perhaps the best view of Kimmel may be gleaned from a reading of the colloquy between his legal advisor and the district judge which transpired at a post-conviction hearing. The material part is set forth below. 9

There is simply no showing whatsoever on this record that Kimmel was made expressly aware by anyone of the risks and consequences of self-representation in this case. Nor would further inquiry into the defendant’s general “background, experience, and conduct” illuminate this point. The failure of the district court to provide the necessary warning cannot be rectified by such an inquiry. The validity of Kimmel’s waiver of counsel must be measured by his specific knowledge of the risks and consequences of self-representation, based on the specific information provided to him prior to the time he “waived” his constitutional rights; it may not be inferred from his general experience or education. Despite this rule, the majority remands the case to allow the district court to provide “further details” of Kimmel’s background, experience, and conduct. Assuming that the district court does supplement the record with the details suggested, we will still be required to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.

The only concrete background information which the majority suggests may be useful in determining the validity of Kimmel’s waiver is what he may have been told in an earlier state court proceeding in which he allegedly represented himself. Kimmel’s record of involvement with the courts has been supplied to us by the district judge as part of the post-trial bail reduction proceed *731 ings he conducted at our request. The record reflects that (a) Kimmel was charged in several state court prosecutions with growing or cultivating marijuana; (b) the most recent prosecution occurred five years prior to his trial in this case; (c) the most serious punishment imposed in any of the state court proceedings against Kimmel was probation; and (d) Kimmel was represented by counsel on each occasion. 10 Thus, from the record furnished us by the district court it appears that Kimmel did not previously represent himself and that there was therefore no occasion in the past for any court to advise him of the risks of self-representation. 11 Moreover, even had Kimmel been so advised in some manner in an earlier state court proceeding, that would be of little significance here. In the case before us, Kimmel was tried and convicted of the federal offenses of conspiring to distribute and distributing LSD and has been sentenced to ten years in prison. The risks of self-representation to Kimmel in the case before us were substantially greater than the risks present in any of the marijuana related state proceedings against Kimmel. Information given to Kimmel in the state proceedings, if any, cannot serve to establish that he was made aware of the nature of the federal charges against him, the consequences of a conviction on those charges, and the risks of self-representation in a case as serious as the one before us.

Conclusion

I stated earlier that the time has come for us to adopt formally a rule 1) requiring the district court to advise the defendant of the risks of self-representation, the nature of the charges, and the consequences of conviction before accepting the defendant’s waiver of counsel, and 2) that the failure of the district court to do so requires reversal. As of now, and notwithstanding the majority’s remand in this case, such is the de facto rule in this circuit.

Despite our previous warnings, district courts continue to accept waivers of counsel without expressly advising the defendant of the risks and consequences of their proposed action or otherwise attempting to determine on the record if the defendant has made a knowing and intelligent waiver of that right. I believe that a net savings of judicial resources would result if we were to adopt the course I recommend. Our formal adoption of such a rule would encourage district courts to do that which they are already in fact required to do, and would save this court from the task of searching the record below for that which cannot be found: evidence that the defendant was advised of the risks involved and made a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to counsel.

Although we have not yet adopted the rule set forth above, I believe that under the current state of the law we are required to reverse and remand for a new trial, for the following reasons:

Accordingly, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to order only a limited remand in this case. I believe that we are required to reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial.

*732 ON REMAND

PER CURIAM:

We remanded this case for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to supplement the record on whether Kimmel made a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to be represented by counsel at trial. United States v. Kimmel, 672 F.2d 720 (9th Cir. 1982). The record as it then stood did not support a finding of an adequate waiver.

On remand, the district court conducted a hearing at which the Government volunteered to make an offer of proof showing a knowing and intelligent waiver. Subsequently, however, the Government decided not to pursue the matter. The court thus concluded the remand proceedings without adding any relevant evidence to the record.

We therefore reverse the convictions and remand for a new trial.

. Courts have been inconsistent in their description of a valid waiver of counsel. I have used the term “knowing and intelligent waiver.” In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 , 95 S.Ct. 2525 , 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), the Court uses the terms “knowingly and intelligently” and “competently and intelligently” interchangeably. We have done the same, sometimes using one, sometimes the other, and sometimes both in the same opinion. See United States v. Bird, 621 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1980) (“knowingly and intelligently”); United States v. Crowhurst, 596 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1979) (knowingly, competently and intelligently); United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1978) (“knowingly and intelligently” and “competently and intelligently”); United States v. Gillings, 568 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1978) (“knowing and intelligent”); United States v. Dujanovic, 486 F.2d 182 (9th Cir. 1973) (“competently and intelligently” and “competently, voluntarily, and intelligently”).

. The parties have pointed to only one instance in the record in which the court addressed the defendant regarding his decision to waive his right to counsel:

. If the majority’s unsupported statement that the limited remand procedure is a “prudential device which until recently has been used quite sparingly in this circuit” is intended to imply that the use of limited remands in this circuit is a recent phenomenon, or that there has been some recent change in our practice, the majority’s statement is contrary to the facts. See, e.g., Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Kellogg, 119 F.2d 115, 118 (9th Cir. 1941); Lorber v. Vista Irrigation District, 127 F.2d 628, 639 (9th Cir. 1942); Willapoint Oysters, Inc. v. Ewing, 174 F.2d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 1949); Union Stock Farms v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 265 F.2d 712, 728 (9th Cir. 1959). See generally Ford Motor Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 364, 373 , 59 S.Ct. 301, 307 , 83 L.Ed.2d 221 (1938) (“It is familiar appellate practice to remand causes for further proceedings ... where justice demands that course in order that some defect in the record may be supplied.”).

However, if by a “prudential device which until recently has been used quite sparingly in this circuit” the majority is referring to an evidentiary remand under circumstances similar to those present in this case, the majority contradicts itself. The majority earlier states that “[tjhis case is the first in which we have used a limited remand to supplement a record which does not show a knowing and intelligent waiver.” The previous use of an evidentiary remand in this circuit for such a purpose has been sparing indeed — it has been non-existent, as the majority points out. In fact, the only case in which the majority suggests a limited remand procedure has been used under comparable circumstances is an isolated case from the Second Circuit which was explicitly based on exceptional circumstances. Tompkins v. United States, 623 F.2d 824 (2d Cir. 1980). In that case the court did not purport to adopt a “new prudential device,” but rather, admitted that it was making an exception to its normal, well established procedure because of the unique circumstances presented. No such circumstances are present here.

. In both Davis and Rhinehart , the defendants were denied the right to seif-representation and were therefore represented by counsel at trial, while in this case Kimmel claims that he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel. The majority fails to note this important distinction in its reliance on Davis . Courts indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver of the right to counsel, Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 465 , 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938), although the right to self-representation may be waived by the mere failure to assert it, Brown v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 607 (5th Cir. 1982). It is therefore highly inappropriate to adopt a procedure from a context in which a right is waived unless asserted, and apply it to a right which is preserved unless waived. Rather than “indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver,” the majority adopts a procedure which, when applied in this context, can only operate to infer a waiver from the defendant’s background, experience, and conduct.

. The district court did determine that Kimmel had some understanding of the limited role of a legal advisor. That, however, falls far short of the required showing.

. The determination of whether the defendant was made aware of those risks and consequences may be made from the record as a whole. United States v. Bird, 621 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1980); United States v. Aponte, 591 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1978); Cooley v. United States, 501 F.2d 1249 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1123 , 95 S.Ct. 809 , 42 L.Ed.2d 824 (1975).

. In United States v. Gillings, 568 F.2d 1307 (9th Cir. 1978), we stated “[w]e apply the Faretta standard here.” Faretta requires that the defendant “be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation.” 422 U.S. at 835 , 95 S.Ct. at 2541 . While in our per curiam opinion in Gillings we did not set forth specifically what the district judge told the defendant nor what inquiry the judge made of the defendant, we said that the court approved the waiver “after an extended discussion in which the [defendant] played a major part and after having [him] consult [his] attorney one last time.” 568 F.2d at 1309 . I assume that the panel was satisfied from the record in Gillings that the defendant had in fact been made aware of the risks and consequences of his action.

. We must, of course, also be concerned with whether a defendant who is expressly made aware of “the risks and consequences” of his action is capable of comprehending and evaluating those facts.

. THE COURT: It’s just that Mr. Kimmel is in my opinion a rather strange gentleman.

MR. BRONSON: Yes. Thank you, Your Honor, for that___

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BRONSON: He’s still trying___

THE COURT: I tried the case and I know him very well.

MR. BRONSON: He’s still — my last contact he was still trying to contact the Shah of Iran, and he does not believe the Shah is dead. So, that’s kind of where we are.

THE COURT: Yeah. Well, I think that we have to move rather carefully in this field because he does have problems in that area, but that doesn’t mean he might not be entitled to a reduction of bail ...

I haven’t seen him recently, but, of course, as you recall, it’s shocking what he looks like at his age. How old is he?

MR. BRONSON: He’s in his thirties or mid-thirties, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Yeah. He looks like he’s___

MR. BRONSON: ... in his sixties.

THE COURT: ___in his eighties or something. Maybe his health has improved since he has been kept away from the drugs that were part of his religion, as I recall.

. There were no records available concerning one of the charges listed in Kimmel’s prior record of offenses supplied by the district court — a 1973 marijuana charge. The record does not reflect, therefore, whether Kimmel was ever brought to trial on that charge or whether he was represented by counsel if he did stand trial.

. Kimmel remarked to the district court in this case that he had represented himself in some proceeding three years earlier. The majority apparently infers from this statement that Kimmel had previously defended himself in a criminal trial. However, the record before this court does not reflect that Kimmel was involved in any criminal proceeding three years before his trial in federal court, nor that he represented himself in any prior criminal trial.