Whether a pretrial request for self-representation can be held 'untimely'

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether, as the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions hold, a request for self-representation under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), is timely if made prior to trial, or whether instead—as California and a handful of other jurisdictions maintain—even a pretrial Faretta request can be held to be “untimely” based on an amorphous “totality of the circumstances” test? 2. Has California continued to defy this Court’s holding and opinion in Johnson v. California, 545 U.S. 162 (2005)!, by consistently imposing a standard for the first (or prima facie) step of the analysis required by this Court’s opinion in Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), that is, as a practical matter, impossible to satisfy? 1 Though this case shares a caption with this earlier Johnson case, they are unrelated. To avoid confusion Mr. Johnson will refer to this Court’s earlier case and the decision below in this case using their full case titles. i RELATED CASES e People v. Joe Edward Johnson, No. 58961, California Superior Court, Sacramento County. Judgement entered May 28, 1981 e People v. Joe Edward Johnson, No. S004381, Supreme Court of California. Judgement entered December 22, 1988 e Johnson v. California, No. 88-7245, Supreme Court of the United States. Order Denying Petition for Writ of Certiorari entered October 2, 1989. e People v. Joe Edward Johnson, No. 58961, California Superior Court, Sacramento County. Judgement entered October 28, 1992 e People v. Joe Edward Johnson, No. S029551, Supreme Court of California. Judgement entered November 25, 2019; modified on denial of rehearing February 11, 2020. ii