Vernon Jackson v. Eddie Ylst

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that federal courts have no authority to review a state’s application of its law
• holding that untimely and equivocal request to represent self was not sufficient to invoke right
• holding that defendant’s statements, “ ‘I want to fight in pro per then,’ ” and “ ‘[r]elieve him and I do this myself,’ ” not clear and unequivocal assertion
• concluding that an emotional request for self-representation following an adverse ruling “did not demonstrate to a reasonable certainty that he in fact wished to represent himself’
• holding that a “request for self-representation that is ‘a momentary caprice or the result of thinking out loud,’” such as an “impulsive response to the trial court’s denial of [a defendant’s] request for substitute counsel,” is an equivocal request
• “noting that [the federal court] ha[s] no 18 authority to review a state’s application of its own laws”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).