William Allen Marshall v. Don Taylor, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the California rule for determining the timeliness of Faretta motions was not contrary to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Faretta that a request made “weeks before trial” is timely
• holding that a defendant's motion to represent himself was untimely when made the day trial was set to commence, after several continuances of his trial, and with no facts to show that his last-minute request was reasonable
• explaining that because “the Supreme Court incorporated the facts of Faretta into its holding [. . .] the holding may be read to require a court to grant a Faretta request when the request occurs weeks before trial.”
• explaining that Faretta “indirectly incorporated a timing element”
• state court did not violate clearly 16 established Supreme Court precedent by concluding that a Faretta motion brought on the 17 first day of trial was untimely
• “Faretta clearly established some timing element, but we still do not know the precise contours of 2 that element. At most, we know that Faretta requests made ‘weeks before trial’ are timely.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).