Adrian Reyes v. Greg Lewis
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15146
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Fifteen-year-old Adrian Reyes was questioned across three sessions (Jan 13, Feb 9–10, 2006); he took a voluntary polygraph and signed consent, but police obtained an unwarned custodial confession at the sheriff’s station after the polygraph.
- Detectives then transported Reyes back to the Riverside station, administered Miranda warnings, and obtained a post‑warning confession repeating substantially the same account.
- At trial the court suppressed the unwarned post‑polygraph statements but admitted the post‑warning confession; Reyes was convicted of first‑degree murder and sentenced to 50 years‑to‑life.
- The California Court of Appeal upheld admission of the warned confession, treating the dispositive inquiry as voluntariness and distinguishing Missouri v. Seibert.
- On federal habeas, the Ninth Circuit majority held the state court decision was contrary to Seibert (applying Justice Kennedy’s concurrence as controlling), found the officers deliberately employed a two‑step interrogation without adequate curative measures, and reversed the denial of the writ (remand to grant unless retried).
- Multiple judges filed a concurrence and two dissents addressing (1) whether Justice Kennedy’s Seibert concurrence is clearly established law under Marks/AEDPA and (2) whether AEDPA deference was properly applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Reyes) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Seibert applies to bar the post‑warning confession (two‑step interrogation) | Officers deliberately withheld warnings to weaken Miranda; post‑warning confession must be suppressed absent curative measures | State: Seibert distinguishable; post‑warning statement was voluntary and warnings ultimately effective | Held: Yes — court applied Justice Kennedy’s Seibert test, found deliberate two‑step tactic and inadequate curative measures, suppressed post‑warning confession |
| Whether the California Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to clearly established federal law under AEDPA | Court misapplied Seibert by focusing solely on voluntariness rather than the two‑step/curative analysis | State: Court’s approach was consistent with Elstad/Seibert and entitled to deference | Held: Court of Appeal’s reasoning was contrary to Seibert; AEDPA deference not dispositive where state decision contradicts clearly established law |
| Whether the state court’s factual findings (no deliberate tactic / warnings effective) were unreasonable under §2254(d)(2) | Facts support inference of deliberateness (timing, continuity, overlapping content); no curative measures | State: No subjective evidence of bad faith; reasonable to view pre‑warning interviews as noncustodial or inadvertent | Held: The Ninth Circuit majority found the state factual determinations unreasonable given the record and inferred deliberateness |
| Remedy on habeas (relief type and retrial) | Suppression of post‑warning confession requires habeas relief unless retried | State: Admission error harmless or retrial appropriate | Held: Writ granted; remanded with instructions to grant unless state retries within a reasonable time (≤180 days) |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (split Court addressing midstream Miranda warnings and two‑step interrogations)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (postwarning statements admissible under voluntariness analysis absent deliberate two‑step tactics)
- United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. 2006) (Ninth Circuit applying Seibert and discussing indicators of deliberateness)
- Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188 (1977) (framework for identifying the controlling opinion in fractured Supreme Court decisions)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA standard: "fair‑minded" deference and constraints on federal habeas relief)
- United States v. Davis, 825 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (reasoning‑based Marks application in this circuit)