Clarence Schreane v. David Ebbert
864 F.3d 446
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 1999, Clarence D. Schreane—then incarcerated on unrelated charges—contacted Chattanooga detectives and was brought to the police station; after several hours he gave a tape-recorded confession implicating himself in a 1991 murder.
- At the interview, Schreane initially asked to speak with an attorney; police did not immediately cease questioning or provide counsel and read Miranda warnings after about four hours.
- Detective Mathis testified the officers did not promise specific legal relief but said they would report Schreane’s cooperation to the district attorney and might assist with a transfer; Schreane testified the officers promised he would not be charged and would get other favors.
- A jury convicted Schreane of first-degree felony murder and aggravated robbery; state courts denied suppression, post-conviction relief, coram nobis, and other collateral challenges.
- Schreane filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, limited on appeal to whether police violated his Fifth Amendment right to counsel by continuing interrogation after his request for an attorney and whether the lengthy pre-Miranda questioning rendered his confession inadmissible.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed denial of the § 2254 petition, deferring to the state court’s finding that Schreane initiated contact and was not in Miranda custody when he requested counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether police violated Schreane’s Fifth Amendment right to counsel by continuing interrogation after he requested an attorney | Schreane contends he asked for counsel and officers should have stopped questioning; subsequent statements after that request were inadmissible | State argues Miranda protections did not attach because Schreane was not "in custody"—he initiated contact with police—so no right to counsel arose | Court held state court reasonably found Schreane was not in Miranda custody when he requested counsel; no violation and confession admissible |
| Whether length of pre‑Miranda questioning (over four hours) made statements involuntary or custody for Miranda | Long pre-warning questioning rendered interrogation custodial and later waiver invalid | State argues other factors (location, lack of restraints, statements, release) show noncustodial context despite duration | Court applied Howes factors, found overall record reasonably supports noncustodial finding; AEDPA deference prevents relief |
| Whether promises of leniency rendered confession involuntary (raised below but outside COA) | Schreane argues promises to report cooperation, secure transfer, or avoid charges coerced confession | State contends issue was outside the limited COA and not before the court on federal habeas | Court declined to decide this claim as it was outside the scope of the COA |
| Whether the state court unreasonably determined facts (e.g., who initiated contact) | Schreane disputed that he initiated contact, asserting he did not call police | State points to Schreane’s own trial and post-conviction testimony that he made the call and initiated the interview | Court held the state court’s factual finding that Schreane initiated contact was reasonable and entitled to AEDPA deference |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (police must give warnings prior to custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (once defendant invokes right to counsel, interrogation must cease unless defendant initiates further communication)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA review requires identifying governing rule and assessing objective reasonableness of state-court application)
- Howes v. Fields, 565 U.S. 499 (2012) (factors for determining Miranda custody of an incarcerated person)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (scope of federal habeas review of state-court decisions)
- McKinney v. Hoffner, 830 F.3d 363 (6th Cir.) (discussing invocation of counsel and custody)
- Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797 (1991) (identifying the last reasoned state-court opinion for federal review)