What is the effect of refusing to appoint counsel to a defendant at trial and then forcing him to represent himself at trial?

What is crucial for purposes of both the former testimony exception and the confrontation clause is whether the previous opportunity for cross-examination was effective. Thus, if the trial court had refused to appoint counsel for defendant and had forced him to represent himself at the first trial, the testimony of witnesses who subsequently became unavailable would not have been admissible at the second trial. (Pointer v. Texas (1965) 380 U.S. 400, 406-408, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923.) This is not because defendant's right to counsel would have been violated (id., at pp. 402-403, 85 S.Ct. 1065), but because the assistance of counsel tends to promote effective cross-examination. (Id., at p. 407, 85 S.Ct. 1065.)

Even ineffective assistance of counsel at the first trial need not render former testimony inadmissible, unless the ineffective assistance actually affected the cross-examination. In Mancusi v. Stubbs (1972) 408

Page 269