Is a failure to readvise an unrepresented defendant of their right to counsel under section 987, subdivision (a) prejudicial?

² Notice how precisely the opposite is true of the failure to readvise an unrepresented defendant, who has already knowingly and voluntarily waived counsel, of the right to counsel at the time of arraignment under section 987, subdivision (a). A reviewing court can easily determine whether the failure to readvise a defendant about the right to counsel and to obtain a renewed waiver of that right was prejudicial where (1) a magistrate has already advised the defendant about the right to counsel and cautioned the defendant about the pitfalls of self-representation at the preliminary hearing as well as trial, and (2) the defendant expressed an understanding of the risks and a desire nonetheless to proceed without the assistance of counsel throughout the proceedings. (People v. Crayton (2002) 28 Cal.4th 346, 364-366, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 580, 48 P.3d 1136.) That's a far cry from what occurred here, though. Defendant was never advised ofand never waivedhis right to have a jury determine the truth of the special circumstance allegation in the first place. Nor does he claim that he ought to have been readvised of his jury trial right before the trial court began the special circumstance phase.