Whether the complete failure to conduct a Faretta-compliant inquiry with the accused in the face of a clear and unequivocal request to proceed pro se constitutes reversible error as a matter of law

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; AD Factta's precedurd and subatacttve cules Pequire atid court” +b engage in a Facétha~ compliaat in uiry withthe accused inthe face ofa clear and waequivoca ne ke ri Whe proceed pro set, Does tke complete failure t+ cond ahi. ingly esl error as 4 matter oF Lawyand require adimat ¢ reversale , | . | 2. Is abt while ose ofthe Faratla inquiry fortke tid eur | gither esseatial 1 flr au nestling te acused onthe record sfocused onthe oui yi lige 1 veluitary ndliere ofthe request | ia ard ert make an infirm decision whakects deny or raat self| represestition t | 3. On director edlitiral ceview Under the Astiterrorism EHfedive : . ped Penalh Ad( AEDPAY, whatis the clearly established my cahed fae iio standing Supreme Cour case law when: a 4ia eouttdails te conduat a conte poran cous and comprehensive Faretta compli inguey and cunnarily denies a clear and wnequivca, tela . gpad faitk request proceed pro se. 4. Where ist uarantie or coledion of Due Process of Law’ Where ia ‘ tevie wing Cots ni suinenhegre defend-the me ignoce or cefuse ts abdress the adtual thaim raised: and ignore evidence high prob Ave and centrale Parttoneds properly presented constr nal Aes as due process been met? 5. Does a didney Cou induce a ddecrinthe ci na institahon of hakeas reyceeting governed by AEDPA, when 1 uludles Farelta claim, aecdeding unpublished distcict court inion and pre~ AEDPA circuit precel oh che han Supreme Cou case Maw i b. weit Appellate Court adeats te Didi Cours | ab errors and integrates, itp iPS analysis of a Facdila claim, bees thaberror induce . CCE Pe Se edge eh process ys CONCErALA.