Marshall

I. BACKGROUND

Prior to jury selection on the morning of Marshall’s state court trial, Marshall moved for a change of counsel or, in the alternative, to represent himself pursuant to Faretta. Although the court expressed concern that Marshall was trying to delay trial by moving for new counsel, the reason the court ulti- mately specified for denying his Faretta request was that 1 422 U.S. 806 (1975). 578 MARSHALL v. TAYLOR Marshall lacked the skills and understanding necessary to rep- resent himself. Marshall objected to the ruling. A court- appointed attorney represented Marshall during his trial, the jury convicted him, and he received a sentence of 25-years-to- life.

On direct appeal, Marshall raised the denial of his Faretta request. The California Court of Appeal stated that under Peo- ple v. Windham,2 invocation of the right of self-representation required an unequivocal request made a reasonable amount of time before trial. The court held that Marshall’s request was untimely, citing several factors. First, the court noted that Marshall made his request on the day trial was set to com- mence and after he had received several continuances of…