Williams v. State

Williams (defendant) was convicted of robbing a storekeeper. He had a court-appointed lawyer but conducted much of his own defense. The storekeeper testified that Williams had robbed him on an earlier occasion; the judge sustained Williams's untimely general objection (insufficient to preserve the issue), even though Williams himself had cross-examined about the first robbery and requested no other relief, and instructed the jury to consider that evidence only for limited purposes. On appeal Williams argued the first-robbery evidence required a mistrial, that the judge failed to account for his ignorance of the law, and that letting him represent himself denied him a fair trial.

Whether the ordinary rules of evidence and procedure apply fully when a criminal defendant chooses to represent himself.