Appellants filed their petition for postconviction relief from the maximum *225sentence for burglary of the Bank of Chidester imposed by a jury on September 11, 1969. The only ground that merits any real consideration is their contention that they were deprived of the effective assistance of counsel in violation of their constitutional rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. They alleged that during the trial William I. Purifoy, their employed counsel, was intoxicated, that he had a wine bottle in his back pocket in full view in the courtroom, and that he left the courtroom three times during the course of the trial.
The record discloses that direct evidence against appellants on the charge was overwhelming. It also discloses that the prosecuting attorney would not agree to imposition of any sentence less than the maximum. It appears obvious to us that the real purpose of the trial was to determine the punishment to be imposed and that appellants hoped to escape the maximum punishment.
There was testimony by jurors at the hearing on appellants’ petition that clearly indicated that appellants’ attorney was intoxicated and had a bottle in his pocket. Several of them observed his condition and stated that the lawyer was somewhat incoherent, and his hair and clothing disheveled, was unexplainedly absent from the courtroom on several occasions while the trial was in progress, and that he often could not be either heard or understood when he talked. The jury foreman described his conduct as highly irregular for a courtroom. Another juror said that he actually considered getting up and leaving the courtroom, because he did not feel that a jury should be required to sit on a case where the defendants’ attorney appeared, because of intoxication, to be in no state of mind to be handling a case in court. The jurors differed as to the effect on them of this attorney’s conduct, but at least some of them indicated that their verdict, either as to guilt or sentence, or both, was influenced by it.
A trooper of the Arkansas State Police to whom the attorney offered a drink from a bottle of wine during a recess before taking one himself observed the attorney *226during the trial. His conduct in the courtroom led the officer to the opinion that this lawyer was under the influence of intoxicants to a certain degree, but not as drunk as the officer had seen him on the streets on other occasions. The prosecuting attorney also testified that he thought that the jury might have been persuaded to give a little less sentence by a “good lawyer,” adding that he had seen this attorney perform as a much better criminal lawyer than he was at this trial.
During a recess in the trial, one Bill Horton, a relative of one of the appellants, approached the circuit judge questioning whether appellants were getting a fair trial and calling the judge’s attention to the fact that their lawyer was drinking and had a one-half pint bottle of wine in his pocket. The prosecuting attorney, either at this recess or another, reported to the judge that appellants’ attorney had a bottle in his hip pocket. This official testified that the attorney was under the influence of alcohol, that he left the courtroom on a few occasions, and that Horton’s conference with the judge was arranged by this witness after Horton had interceded with him in an effort to have a mistrial declared.
According to the judge, he then observed appellants’ attorney and his demeanor more closely during the remainder of the trial. At the conclusion of the state’s evidence, appellants’ attorney announced that they also rested. The circuit judge then held a hearing in the absence of the jury, and, apparently, without the presence of appellants’ attorney. After advising appellants that the fairness of their trial had been questioned on the basis of their attorney’s condition, he reminded them that, when arraigned some months earlier, they were informed of their right to jury trial, to remain silent and to be represented by counsel, who would be appointed by the court, if they were indigent. He also called to their attention that the court had appointed one of the attorneys by whom they are presently represented, but that they had declined his services and employed the attorney who appeared at the trial. The judge then interrogated each of appellants as to whether he felt that he was properly and adequately represented in court on *227that day. When each replied in the affirmative, the judge remarked that there was nothing that he could do, that the matter was brought to their attention in accordance with the dictates of good justice to both them, and the state, but if they were satisfied with their attorney’s services, he had nothing more to say. The prosecuting attorney testified that he had advised the judge that the state would not object to either the declaration of a mistrial or proceeding with the trial. He also said that he thought the court had no choice in the matter if the appellants elected to proceed with their attorney.
After the extensive hearing on the postconviction motion, the circuit judge found that the evidence was clear that appellants’ employed counsel appeared at the trial in a shabby condition and under the influence of intoxicants to some degree, to the disgrace of his profession and bar and to the degradation of our system of justice. The judge again concluded that, in view of the expressions of satisfaction by appellants, there was nothing more that he could have done.
There can no longer be any doubt that Amendment 6 to the United States Constitution requires that a defendant in a state trial have the effective assistance of counsel. See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799, 93 A. L. R. 2d 733 (1963); Mitchell v. Stephens, 353 F. 2d 129 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 384 U. S. 1019, 16 L. Ed. 2d 1042, 86 S. Ct. 1966 (1966). See also, Reece v. State, 350 U. S. 85, 76 S. Ct. 167, 100 L. Ed. 77 (1955). Effectiveness of counsel is not to be measured by the success reflected in the results of the trial. Mitchell v. Stephens, supra; Peyton v. Ellyson, 207 Va. 423, 150 S. E. 2d 104 (1966). As pointed out in Mitchell, retrospective evaluation of effectiveness of counsel is usually difficult for an appellate court, because so much depends upon judgment and the factors which influence judgment at the moment.
Normally, the state is absolved of any responsibility to see that a defendant’s counsel is competent and effective after appearance of privately retained non-ap*228pointed counsel. United States v. Maroney, 423 F. 2d 865 (3rd Cir. 1970); Lunce v. Overlade, 244 F. 2d 108, 74 A. L. R. 2d 1384 (7th Cir. 1957); United States v. Handy, 203 F. 2d 407 (3rd Cir. 1953), cert. denied, 338 U. S. 862, 94 L. Ed. 528, 70 S. Ct. 96 (1949), 342 U. S. 837, 96 L. Ed. 632, 72 S. Ct. 61 (1951), 346 U. S. 865, 98 L. Ed. 375, 74 S. Ct. 103 (1953), aff’d, 351 U. S. 454, 100 L. Ed. 1331, 76 S. Ct. 965 (1956); United States v. Ragen, 166 F. 2d 976 (7th Cir. 1948). Yet, when the professional conduct of non-appointed counsel is so lacking in competence or good faith that it shocks the conscience of the court or prosecutors, and the trial is reduced to a sham, farce or mockery of justice, permitting the proceedings to continue will constitute a denial of due process. United States v. Maroney, supra; Wilson v. Phend, 417 F. 2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1969); United States v. Ragen, supra. See also, Cardarella v. United States, 375 F. 2d 222 (8th Cir. 1967); Cross v. United States, 392 F. 2d 360 (8th Cir. 1968); Commonwealth v. Maroney, 427 Pa. 599, 235 A. 2d 349 (1967); Peyton v. Ellyson, supra.1 It then becomes the duty of the state to intervene to see that the essential rights of the accused are preserved. Lunce v. Overlade, supra; State v. Keller, 57 N. D. 645, 223 N. W. 698, 64 A. L. R. 434 (1929); United States v. Handy, supra. It has been said that the constitutional right to counsel invokes the protection of the trial court. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938).
In this case, evaluation of the effectiveness of appellants’ trial counsel presents no difficulty. The record is clear that both the judge and the prosecutor were shocked by this attorney’s condition. The postconviction finding by the circuit judge, who was also the trial judge, that this attorney was in such condition that he was a disgrace to the legal profession and degrading to our system of justice is tantamount to a finding that he was so incompetent, on that occasion, that the trial was reduced to a mockery of justice. The judge, after strict surveillance of the lawyer’s demeanor, felt compelled to *229take some action, before submitting the case to the jury. Appellants are clearly entitled to relief if their acquiescence in continuing the trial did not constitute a waiver of their right to effective assistance of their counsel.
It is to be remembered that at this point the instructions to be given the jury had not been settled, and arguments of counsel would soon begin. Obviously, there was a serious question in the minds of both the prosecuting attorney and the judge as to the fairness of the trial up to this point. After the showing made on behalf of appellants, in the present proceeding, the burden' rested upon the state to show that there was a knowing, intelligent waiver by appellants, based upon adequate warning as to their rights. Jackson v. State, 249 Ark. 653 (1970), 460 S. W. 2d 319. The determination whether there was such a waiver depends upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case, including the background, experience and conduct of the accused. Jackson v. State, supra. Every reasonable presumption must be indulged against the waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942), reh. denied, 315 U. S. 827, 62 S. Ct. 629, 86 L. Ed. 1222 (1942.
We have previously outlined the essential requisites of a waiver in adopting and applying its definition found in Corpus Juris. It is: “*** the voluntary abandonment or surrender, by a capable person, of a right known by him to exist, with the intent that such right shall be surrendered and such person forever deprived of its benefits; or such conduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right, or the intentional doing of an act inconsistent with claiming it. Thus, ‘waiver’ occurs where one in possession of a right, whether conferred by law or contract, with full knowledge of the material facts, does or forbears to do something, the doing of which or the failure or forbearance to do which is inconsistent with the right or his intention to rely upon it.” Sirmon v. Roberts, 209 Ark. 586, 191 S. W. 2d 824. We do not feel that it can be said that the ac*230quiescence of appellants in their continued representation by their retained counsel in this case constituted a waiver. The facts are undisputed, so the question whether there was a waiver is one of law.
We find the evidence insufficient to sustain a finding of waiver as a matter of law. Before we could sustain such a finding, we would have to be able to say that the waiver was knowingly and intelligently made. Jackson v. State, supra. While the record indicates clearly the trial judge thoroughly explained to appellants their right to counsel at their arraignment, there is no indication of any explanation of their rights in the eventuality that was presented during the trial. The only inquiry that was made of appellants was whether they felt that they were properly and adequately represented. There is no indication that they were made aware of any alternative to continuing the trial with that representation.
We do not take the trial judge’s remark that there was nothing he could do to mean that he could not have done otherwise in the absence of appellants’ affirmative responses to the particular inquiry addressed to them separately. That there were alternatives is beyond doubt. In the first place, it is certain that, with the consent or acquiescence of appellants, a mistrial would have been in order. Franklin v. State, 149 Ark. 546, 233 S.W. 688. It also may be proper for the court to declare a mistrial whenever a necessity in the administration of justice arises during the trial demanding action upon the part of the court to safeguard rights of a defendant in a criminal case, even though the defendant declines to object to that which might be prejudicial to him. Martin v. State, 161 Ark. 423, 256 S. W. 367. A plea of double jeopardy would be unavailing in either event. Martin v. State, supra; Franklin v. State, supra. While we have said that the necessity must be an “overruling” one,2 this case presents just such a situation. The requisite necessity exists whenever it is manifest that the jury must be discharged before rendering a verdict in *231order to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. Martin v. State, 163 Ark. 103, 259 S. W. 6. In the case just cited it was pointed out that a contrary holding would require a court to proceed with a trial that the presiding judge knows is not a trial at all, realizing that a conviction could not be permitted to stand. We think that a mistrial would have been in order and that appellants could not have claimed double jeopardy on retrial. But in the present situation, appellants were not advised of this alternative to proceeding with intoxicated coiinsel.
Another alternative, if appellants’ cause was not already irreparably damaged, would have been a suspension of the trial for a reasonable time to permit counsel to be restored to a condition in which he could properly represent his clients in further steps in the course of the trial. This procedure has been held to be proper in other jurisdictions in parallel situations. O’Brien v. Commonwealth, 115 Ky. 608, 74 S. W. 666 (1903); Territory v. Clark, 13 N. M. 59, 79 P. 708 (1905). See also, State v. Keller, 57 N. D. 645, 233 N. W. 698, 64 A. L. R. 434 (1929). While we have not been presented with the exact situation heretofore, this procedure has been approved in cases when dictated by the exigencies of the situation, either with or without the consent of the accused. Brust v. State, 153 Ark. 348, 240 S. W. 1079; McVay v. State, 104 Ark. 629, 150 W. 125. This possibility was not made known to appellants.
In a proper case, prejudice to a defendant might be avoided by the substitution of other counsel. See State v. Keller, supra. The court’s advice to appellants on their arraignment cannot be taken to have made them aware of this possibility when their retained counsel became intoxicated either during or on the eve of the trial.
We are unable to say that there is evidence that appellants knowingly and intelligently waived their right to effective assistance of counsel. In order to say that there was a waiver, it must appear that appellants had full knowledge of their rights and intended to relinquish them. Sirmon v. Roberts, supra; People v. Abetti, 152 *232N. Y. S. 890 (1914). One cannot be said to have waived that of which he had no knowledge. Carr v. State, 65 Okla. Cr. 201, 84 P. 2d 42 (1938). We cannot say that appellants had adequate knowledge upon which to base a waiver in this case.
It has been suggested that appellants were not prejudiced. The right to counsel has been said to be too fundamental and absolute to permit indulgence in nice calculations as to the extent of prejudice arising from its denial. Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 62 S. Ct. 457, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942); Cross v. United States, 392 F. 2d 360 (8th Cir. 1968). The fact that appellants received the maximum punishment at the hands of the jury enables us to avoid speculation as to the prejudicial effect of their attorney’s conduct and condition, particularly when viewed in the light of the testimony of the jurors and the prosecuting attorney.
Granting a new trial to those against whom evidence of guilt is as overwhelming as it is in this case is always an unpleasant duty. Yet, one of the basic pre1 cepts upon which our system was founded is that even the worst criminal is entitled to his day in court on which he may be heard by counsel. He cannot be effectively heard through one so drunk that his speech cannot be heard or, at best, is incoherent. Clear constitutional rights must be protected for the benefit of all of us, even though it may result in some case that some guilty person may escape punishment. That eventuality seems slight in' this case, where it appears that appellants were caught “red-handed.”
Appellants also contend that they should be relieved of the consequences of their pleas of guilty to other charges after their trial had been concluded. We do not agree. The record discloses that appellants advised the prosecuting attorney of their desire to change their pleas in these other cases. The circuit judge then recalled .to appellants his instructions to them when they were arraigned on these charges as to the nature, elements and penalties relating to these offenses, the presumption of their innocence, right to trial by impartial jury, rights *233as to self-incrimination, right to counsel, and, if indigent, to appointment of counsel, and the previous appointment of counsel for them. One of the appellants answered clearly stated inquiries by saying that he had no attorney in these cases, that he did not desire to employ one or to have one appointed for him, and that his pleas of guilty were voluntary, and without coercion, threat, promise, abuse or enticement from any person, and without being influenced by his incarceration. The other answered similar inquiries in the same way, except that he had an attorney but did not care to have him present and that he was refusing the assistance of counsel, even though he was mindful of the fact that he could have one appointed by the court if he desired. These appellants clearly waived their right to counsel in these cases. Burch v. United States, 359 F. 2d 69 (8th Cir. 1966).
The contention that being put to trial on information filed by the prosecuting áttorney rather than by indictment violated constitutional rights merits no discussion. Cassady v. State, 249 Ark. 1040 (1971), 463 S. W. 2d 96.
The conviction of appellants of the burglary of the Bank of Chidester is set aside and the case remanded for a new trial. In all other respects the judgment denying postconviction relief is affirmed.
George Rose Smith, Jones and Byrd, JJ., dissent.