David McKinney v. Nick Ludwick
2011 WL 3628854
6th Cir.2011Background
- McKinney, convicted of felony murder and accessory after the fact for robbery, arson, and homicide at Alexander’s Gun Shop, challenges admission of statements from Nov. 21, 2004 as Miranda/Edwards violations.
- McKinney invoked counsel during a custodial interview on Nov. 20, 2004; later, he spoke again on Nov. 21, 2004 after a death-penalty comment by the interrogating officer.
- The state appellate courts rejected suppression and held the Edwards initiation exception applied, allowing the Nov. 21 statements.
- District court denied habeas relief; the Sixth Circuit affirmed, applying AEDPA deference and evaluating whether the state court reasonably applied federal law.
- The central question is whether the death-penalty comment and subsequent initiation-motivated discussion complied with Miranda/Edwards and voluntary-waiver standards.
- McKinney was already represented by counsel during the August 2004 arrest and interrogation, which is relevant to the Edwards framework and initiation analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deputy’s death-penalty remark constituted interrogation under Edwards. | McKinney | McKinney | Interrogation present; but Edwards initiation later allowed waiver. |
| Whether the Nov. 21, 2004 statements were validly waived after initiation despite prior invocation. | McKinney | McKinney | Yes; initiation and time lapse supported voluntary waiver. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (established core Miranda warnings and admissibility if waiver is voluntary and knowing)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (U.S. 1981) (prohibits further interrogation after request for counsel unless initiated by suspect)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (U.S. 1980) (definition of interrogation includes police-initiated actions likely to elicit an incriminating response)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1986) (waiver must be voluntary and knowing; rights relinquished knowingly)
- Bradshaw, 462 U.S. 1039 (U.S. 1983) (initiation doctrine allows suspect, not police, to initiate discussion post-invocation)
- Hill v. Brigano, 199 F.3d 833 (6th Cir. 1999) (time lapse and counsel assignment can validate initiation after improper interrogation)
- Maryland v. Shatzer, 130 S. Ct. 1213 (S. Ct. 2010) (Edwards presumption of involuntariness to deter coercive police tactics)
- United States v. Williams, 612 F.3d 417 (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizes Edwards initiation framework in circuit)