Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-679_f2bh.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

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

9 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

inadvertently overlooked.  Id., at 292, 303.  To the extent 
the Court of Appeals relied on what it perceived to be the
lack of any explicit discussion of the May 1998 motions, it 
erred. 

As for the Supreme Court of Ohio’s statements regarding
the  September  1998  motion  and  the  April  1999  hearing,
this evidence also falls far short of showing that the state 
high  court  did  not  adjudicate  the  merits  of  Cassano’s 
Faretta  claim  based  on  the  May  1998  motions.    Again,  in
the  section  entitled  “Preliminary  Issues:  Self-representa-
tion,” the Supreme Court of Ohio specifically described the
dueling motions that Cassano filed.  See Cassano, 96 Ohio 
St. 3d, at 99–100, 772 N. E. 2d, at 90–91.  Only nine sen-
tences  later  the  court  “reject[ed]  Cassano’s  claim  that  his 
rights of self-representation were violated.”  Id., at 100, 772 
N. E. 2d, at 91.  It is implausible that the court neglected or 
forgot about what it had just recounted.  The absence of fur-
ther,  specific  discussion  is  more  likely  a  reflection  of  the
state high court’s judgment that the argument was “too in-
substantial  to  merit  [further]  discussion”  once  already
flagged  in  the  opinion.  Williams,  568  U. S.,  at  299.    The 
May  1998  waiver  of  counsel,  simultaneously  contradicted 
by a request for new counsel, simply did not count for much 
of anything.  At the very least, the statements identified by
the Court of Appeals were insufficient to overcome the pre-
sumption of merits adjudication by “very clearly” showing 
that the Supreme Court of Ohio overlooked the May 1998
motions, instead of tersely dismissing them.  Id., at 303. 

The Court of Appeals likewise erred when, purporting to
apply AEDPA deference to the Supreme Court of Ohio’s as-
sessment  of  Cassano’s  April  1999  motion,  it  nevertheless 
found  the  state  court’s  decision  objectively  unreasonable. 
See  1  F.  4th,  at  474.    It  bears  repeating:  “A  state  court’s
determination  that  a  claim  lacks  merit  precludes  federal 
habeas relief so long as ‘fairminded jurists could disagree’ 
on  the  correctness  of  [that]  decision.”  Harrington,  562