9th Circuit finds bad Miranda warnings and an involuntary confession

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's a long, but interesting read:  Doody v. Schriro.  My favorite paragraph, at page 30 of the pdf:

"The Miranda warnings provided to Doody were defective because Detective Riley downplayed the warnings' significance, deviated from an accurate reading of the Miranda waiver form, and expressly misinformed Doody regarding his right to counsel. In view of clear, convincing and contrary evidence, the Arizona Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Miranda warnings were "clear and understandable" constituted both an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Siebert, 542 U.S. at 608.

Our colleagues in dissent chastise us for reaching these conclusions, accusing the majority of "once again pay[ing] mere lip service to AEDPA and then proceed[ing] as though it did not exist." See Dissenting Opinion, p. 3032. The dissent would prefer that we simply parrot the findings made during the state court proceedings and call it a day. However, if we succumb to the temptation to abdicate our responsibility on habeas review, we might as well get ourselves a big, fat rubber stamp, pucker up, and kiss The Great Writ good-bye."

Well said, Judge Rawlinson.


0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: 9th Circuit finds bad Miranda warnings and an involuntary confession.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://ranchocabron.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/233

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by JoNell published on February 25, 2010 2:16 PM.

Nevada Supreme Court issues 3 opinion was the previous entry in this blog.

Oral arguments today - 3/1 - at the Nevada Supreme Court is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Powered by Movable Type 4.0