Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-679_f2bh.pdf
Page Number: 4.0

4 

SHOOP v. CASSANO 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

Cassano  v.  Bradshaw,  No.  1:03–cv–1206  (ND  Ohio),  ECF 
Doc. 138, p. 15.  The District Court for the Northern District 
of Ohio reviewed the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision re-
jecting Cassano’s Faretta arguments on direct appeal.  Ap-
plying  AEDPA  deference,  the  District  Court  denied  relief
but  issued  a  certificate  of  appealability  on  Cassano’s 
Faretta  claim.  Cassano  v.  Bradshaw,  2018  WL  3455531, 
*18–*26, *57 (July 18, 2018). 

A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and con-
ditionally granted Cassano’s petition.  First, it found that 
the Supreme Court of Ohio had not, in fact, addressed Cas-
sano’s alleged invocation of the right to self-representation 
in his May 1998 waiver of counsel motion.  1 F. 4th, at 467– 
468.  The  panel  majority  then  held  that  Cassano  had  in-
voked his right to self-representation clearly and unequivo-
cally  despite  the  simultaneous,  contradictory  motion  for 
substitute counsel.  Id., at 468–470.  Second, regarding the 
September 1998 motion, the Court of Appeals conceded that 
Cassano had requested only “a form of hybrid representa-
tion,” and so the Supreme Court of Ohio’s “conclusion that 
Cassano failed to invoke his right to self-representation” in
that  motion  was  “reasonable.”  Id.,  at  471.   Finally,  the 
Court of Appeals reviewed the state high court’s analysis of 
Cassano’s  April  1999  motion.  The  Court  of  Appeals  pur-
ported to apply AEDPA deference, but still held that “noth-
ing about Cassano’s [April] request was unclear or equivo-
cal, and no fairminded jurist could conclude otherwise.”  Id., 
at 473.  The Court of Appeals conditionally granted habeas 
relief  unless  Ohio  retried  this  quarter-century-old  capital 
case within six months.  Id., at 479. 

Judge  Siler  dissented,  arguing  that  the  panel  failed  to 
properly apply AEDPA deference to the Supreme Court of 
Ohio’s  decision.  See  id.,  at  479–480.  Judge  Griffin  and
Judge Thapar (joined by Judge Nalbandian) dissented from
the denial of rehearing en banc.  See 10 F. 4th 695, 696 (CA6