With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". supra, there was significant other evidence that should have triggered a competency hearing. Medina is also not relevant here. In Medina, a competency hearing was held the day before trial and among other evidence, two psychiatrist reports confirming defendant’s competency to stand trial were submitted. 59 F.3d at 1109. Medina maintained on federal habeas that a further competency hearing was warranted, but because the claim was defaulted, it was not addressed on the merits. Id. at 1111. Respondent also contends that Petitioner’s wearing of jail attire should not have raised doubts as to his competency.' Respondent is correct that a defendant’s choice to wear prison attire does not necessarily trigger a competency hearing. See, e.g. Davis v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 628, 645 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). In Davis, however, the trial judge questioned

A: holding district court had sua sponte responsibility to duty to inquire into the competency of an unrepresented party in certain circumstances
B: holding that in admitting evidence the failure of the trial court to give a limiting instruction sua sponte is not reversible error
C: holding that a trial court must conduct sua sponte a competency hearing when the information known to the trial court at the time of the trial or plea is sufficient to raise a bona fide doubt regarding the defendants competence
D: holding that a defendants refusal to wear civilian clothes or sit in the courtroom did not give rise to a sua sponte duty to order a competency hearing
D.