Antwion Thompson v. D. Runnel, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1585

Thompson confessed to murdering his girlfriend during unwarned questioning and later gave post-Miranda statements after warnings were provided.
The state trial court and California Court of Appeal admitted the post-Miranda statements, applying Elstad to uphold their admissibility.
Thompson argued Seibert should control because officers allegedly delayed Miranda warnings to obtain a prewarning confession.
The California Court of Appeal rejected Seibert on the basis that Elstad governed at the time of its decision, and the Supreme Court later issued Seibert after Thompson’s conviction became final.
Greene v. Fisher later held that clearly established federal law must be assessed as of the time of the state court’s merits decision, prompting federal review under AEDPA § 2254(d)(1).
The Ninth Circuit ultimately held that Elstad was the relevant controlling standard at the time of the state court decision and denied relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which precedent is 'clearly established' for § 2254(d)(1)?	Thompson: Seibert controls.	State: Elstad controls; Seibert not applicable retroactively.	Elstad governs; no Seibert-based relief under AEDPA.
Was the state appellate decision an unreasonable application of Elstad?	Thompson: state court erred by applying Elstad despite coercive-like tactics.	State: no coercion; waiver valid; Waiver of Miranda rights was voluntary.	Not unreasonable; Elstad applied correctly.
Did Thompson properly exhaust and preserve Seibert/waiver arguments given Greene and timing?	Thompson: Seibert claim was exhausted and properly before the court.	State: Seibert not clearly established at time of state decision; waiver applies.	The issue was properly addressed; court applied correct standard.
Should the federal court stay proceedings to allow state postconviction consideration under Seibert?	Stay warranted to allow Seibert argument in state court (Rhines/Gonzalez context).	No stay; Greene forecloses retroactive Seibert relief here; no good cause shown.	No stay granted.

Elstad v. United States, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) (unwarned admission does not bar subsequent voluntary statements)
Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (deliberate two-step interrogation requires suppression of postwarning statements)
Greene v. Fisher, 132 S. Ct. 38 (2011) (clearly established law determined at time of final state court adjudication)
Wood v. Milyard, 132 S. Ct. 1826 (2012) (waiver of argued defenses can affect review; not controlling for AEDPA standards)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) (burden on petitioner to show unreasonable application under § 2254(d)(1))
Kamen v. Kemper Fin. Servs., Inc., 500 U.S. 90 (1991) (court may identify governing law independently when issue properly before it)
In re Greene, 223 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir.2000) (judge may consider arguments not raised by a party if appropriate)
Gonzalez v. Wong, 667 F.3d 965 (9th Cir.2011) (advising on state postconviction relief and related stays)
Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005) (stay of federal proceedings when good cause shown for exhausted claims)