Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-679_f2bh.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

On  September  25,  1998,  Cassano  filed  another  motion,
this time requesting to participate in the trial as co-counsel 
alongside his new attorneys.  During a hearing that day, he 
reiterated that he had “a right  to be co-counsel with [his] 
attorneys.”  App. to Pet. for Cert. 260a.  The trial court re-
sponded that Cassano was “not going to represent [himself]
in this matter,” and denied the motion.  Ibid. 

On April 23, 1999—three days before trial—Cassano told 
the trial court that he did not think his lead attorney had
prepared adequately for trial.  Cassano said: “I would like 
my lead counsel to be here and be prepared when my trial 
starts.”  Id.,  at  264a.  A  short  time  later,  the  trial  court 
asked whether Cassano had anything else to say.  Cassano 
responded: “Is there any possibility I could  represent my-
self?  I’d like that to go on record.”  Id., at 265a.  The judge
refused, explaining that he and Cassano had “talked about 
it before” and that he would “be doing [Cassano] a disservice
by allowing that.”  Ibid.  Neither the court nor the parties
discussed self-representation again.  See id., at 265a–271a. 
A  jury  then  found  Cassano  guilty  of  aggravated  murder, 
and he was sentenced to death. 

Cassano appealed.  As relevant here, he brought a claim
that the trial court had violated his right to represent him-
self by denying what he argued were three motions request-
ing  self-representation.   The  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio  af-
firmed  in  a  published  opinion.
  In  a  section  labeled 
“Preliminary  Issues:  Self-representation,”  the  court  de-
scribed  the  three  alleged  invocations  before  “reject[ing]
Cassano’s claim that his rights of self-representation were
violated.”  Cassano, 96 Ohio St. 3d, at 98, 100, 772 N. E. 2d, 
at 90, 91. 

Cassano  later  filed  a  federal  habeas  petition  under  28 
U. S. C. §2254.  His “First Claim for Relief ” argued that the 
state trial court violated his right to self-representation in
the lead-up to trial, in violation of Faretta v. California, 422 
U. S. 806 (1975).  See Amended Pet. for Habeas Corpus in