Ninth Circuit: February 2010 Archives

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.

About this Archive

This page is a archive of entries in the Ninth Circuit category from February 2010.

Ninth Circuit: January 2010 is the previous archive.

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

Powered by Movable Type 4.0