Should the Court summarily reverse the Sixth Circuit's award of habeas relief?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED August Cassano is a convicted murderer. Before his state trial, he filed a “waiver of counsel” alongside a request for the appointment of counsel. Then, three days before trial, Cassano asked the trial court: “Is there any possibility I could represent myself?” The Ohio Supreme Court held that neither the “waiver of counsel” nor the question about selfrepresentation constituted a proper invocation of the Sixth Amendment right to To invoke that right, a defendant must “clearly and unequivocally declare[]” his intention to proceed pro se, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975), and he must do so in a timely fashion, Martinez v. Court of Appeal of Cal., Fourth Appellate Dist., 528 U.S. 152, 161 (2000). The Ohio Supreme Court determined that neither a “waiver of counsel’ filed with a request for counsel, nor a question about the possibility of qualified as a clear and unequivocal declaration of an intent to proceed pro se. Further, it held that Cassano’s question about selfrepresentation would have been untimely even if it had been a clear and unequivocal demand. The Sixth Circuit held that Cassano properly invoked his right to self-representation on both occasions and that the Ohio Supreme Court egregiously erred in holding otherwise. On that basis, it awarded habeas relief to Cassano. 1. Should the Court summarily reverse the Sixth Circuit’s award of habeas relief? 2. When a three-judge panel clearly errs in awarding habeas relief, does its decision raise questions important enough to justify en banc review? ii 3. What constitutes a clear and timely request for