Early History

A. Webb v. Baird, (6 Ind. 13),(1853) Indiana Supreme Courtin 1853
The Indiana Supreme Court in 1853 recognized a right to an attorney at public
expense for an indigent person accused of crime, grounded in "the principles
of a civilized society," not in constitutional or statutory law.

Black Letter Law
B. Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964).
Right To Counsel At Accusatory Stage.
(1964)

C.  Johnson v. Zerbst.Right To Counsel Federal  Criminal Proceedings
Petitioner was deprived, in the trial court, of his constitutional right under the
provision of the Sixth Amendment, U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 6,
The right to counsel in federal proceedings was well-established by statute early
 in the country's history, and was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court
in 1938 in  Johnson v. Zerbst.Right , SUPREME COURT Opinions
FindLaw Source

D. The defendant has a right to represent himself. (1975)
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (eCCL).  In
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) (eCCL) the majority stated
that courts must allow a defendant to proceed pro se where his decision
to do so is knowing and intelligent.

E. A waiver of counsel requires searching inquiry by trial court before
allowing criminal defendant to proceed pro se.
People v. Smith, 1998 N.Y. Int. 0167 (Dec. 17, 1998). (1998)
See Summary of the necessity of intellignet waiver.
(Summary of People v Smith and related cases.

           In Reaching its decision the New York relied on the following authority:

          1. People v. Smith, 1998 N.Y. Int. 0167 (Dec. 17, 1998) (eCCL).
               People v. Smith, 1998 N.Y. Int. 0167 (Dec. 17, 1998).
           LII-Cornell University Law School
           2. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975, LII Supreme Court Finder).

F. Exception to Right To Counsel-Arrest Stage-Uncharged Offense
     The People v. Slayton SUPREME
COURT OF CALIFORNIA, S086153

G. Defendant ifs entitled dot effective counsel.
"The benchmark for judging any claim of ineffectiveness must be whether
counsel's conduct so undermined the proper functioning of the adversarial process
that the trial cannot be relied on as having produced a just result.
"Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). "As all the Federal Courts of
Appeals have now held, the proper standard for attorney performance is
that of reasonably effective assistance.... When a convicted defendant complains
of the ineffectiveness of counsel's assistance, the defendant must show that
counsel's representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). The Court ruled against the respondent
in that there was no showing that his sentence was rendered unreliable by a breakdown
in the adversary process caused by ineffective counsel.Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).