Whether the denial of the defendant's request for re-appointment of counsel during his jury trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ) XS Mr NoT TRIE ON Cor 12 2018, Z WAS Lenen RE-qopiT MENT OF CoouseL, DURING JURY 7ie/9L, NOT BECAWE OF DELAY IN TRIRLS BOT BELAVSE | SIQWED : WAVER Allo WAS WARNED NOT 70 DO IT. << NAS pay Y. AMMENDMENT yoLaTen 2) Db TowbE SAY To ME ON RELORD, 2 DAYS. PETER PROSE DEFENpAIT ASK For REAPPONTIERT OF COUNSEL. SPY TO ME, EM DEMYING You REAPPoINTMEAT OF | COWSEL , BECKISE / FULD YOU ,1 WoulQ NOT GIVE COUNSEL BACK To You To CigAs VP YOUR MeSS,/F Z Ghanién You Pkos€ & Nis THERE A Laul of Rule , THAT SAYS Z stoulo BE SLATED RE-APPOUMMENT ee COiser /F THERE wooo NOT Hive Been A Decay Md Ticiale : 4) WHEL 1 WAS DENIED RE-AbbogiTMEMT OF COUNSEL, APPEL A BRIEF DRY WIThOUT CounseL, ANO Have EVigencE PROVIG THERE youn HAUE Wor BEE pay” DELAY Jl) PRIRLL BY RE-APPORTING COUNSEL? TS THIS NOT ABUSE OF DISCezTION? 5) Wio's RES POwCE ABILITY was IT THE STATE OF WA, oR TRE 300CE To CET iN JOECH OF COUNSEL FOR TUE Ako-Se DExEWIRNT, To Fino OvT TE HE Was ARNE ro RETVURM TU Jur TRIAL, WATKOLT A DELAY YN seine © Q) 28 7 A PAU TRIAL? WHEW [pEFEMIANT TOLD THE CoueT HE KNEW (eT. ABOUT Cover Roowr ProckDVhE SRD ZVIDENME RULES, NEVER SEEN DISCUELY BEZORE OPENNb STAVE ENTS AND SEN/EO RE APPOINTMENT OFCOUNSEL? DIST 4 cat FUALE WHEW SvObE ca) BEcoen says , Jrs HARD To bile you A FAI Tene , MoT fowl Covet Loom Vrocentees , AYO EujogncE — , PUES AFTER Aske Zor PE AltoutIMeT CF Causes? THEM NOT MPEG & Rod Jo on WcPou USTIEL 2 pays LATER — OST BEFRRE ALLEDEED Vierore GET ow Sao, DEAYWE ME RE-APPapT MENT OF (DUNSELC DS IT A Fae Tene WHEL) STATE OF hh, ENEWS DEFEARET Hin NEVER SEED DISCOVERY BEFORE THE UWiUmMely DiISmussAL eF Coused, Just (BEFE ; OPENING ETaTeplent,© SHOLANT THE STATE OF WR, sAio SOMETHING TO . . THE Covet © WAS IT (TIMELY 76 BE GRANTED PROSE oo