Habeas corpus; Self-representation; Faretta v California; Explicit & unequivocal demand; Timeliness of a request; The state supreme court’s conclusion that the request was a delay tactic; Whether petitioner abandoned any intent to represent himself; Reliance on McKaskle v Wiggins

In an order, the court denied a rehearing en banc, allowing the prior decision and judgment (see e-Journal # 75672 in the 6/28/21 edition) to stand. The court there reversed the district court’s denial of petitioner-Cassano’s habeas petition, conditionally granting his petition unless Ohio retried him within six months. It held that he had properly invoked his constitutional right to self-representatton, and that his rights under Faretta were violated. Here, the original panel reviewed the petition for rehearing and concluded “that the issues raised in the petition were fully considered upon the original submission and decision. The petition then was circulated to the full court. Less than a majority of the judges voted in favor of rehearing en banc.” Thus, the petition was denied.