Hendrix v. Palmer, 205 F.Supp.3d 895

On Sept. 5–6, 2006, a minivan was stolen and 65-year-old Evangeline Doen was shoved from it and later died; Hendrix was arrested about six hours later sitting in the van.
Police transported Hendrix to Macomb County; on Sept. 6 Detective Hogan advised Hendrix of Miranda rights and Hendrix invoked his right to counsel, after which questioning ceased.
On Sept. 8 Hogan re-approached Hendrix, re-read Miranda rights, Hendrix agreed to talk (refused to sign form) and gave evasive answers; those Sept. 8 statements were admitted at trial and emphasized in closing.
Hendrix was convicted of felony murder, carjacking, and unlawfully driving away an automobile; appellate courts declined to consider the Sept. 6 Miranda materials and affirmed.
On habeas review the district court found (and Respondent conceded) that Sept. 8 questioning violated Miranda/Edwards and also held Hendrix’s trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress; the court conditionally granted a writ (new trial within 90 days) on Fifth and Sixth Amendment grounds and denied relief on other claims.

Issue	Hendrix's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Sept. 8 statements after Sept. 6 invocation of counsel	Sept. 8 interrogation violated Miranda/Edwards; statements inadmissible	Conceded error but contended the error was harmless	Court: Admission violated Fifth Amendment and was not harmless; reversal warranted
Ineffective assistance for failing to move to suppress Sept. 8 statements	Trial counsel had the report/form showing invocation and therefore performed deficiently; prejudice is shown because statements were critical	State previously litigated; on habeas argued harmlessness	Court: Counsel unreasonable for not moving to suppress; Strickland prejudice shown; Sixth Amendment violation
Prosecutorial misconduct re: arguing silence/evidence and eliciting opinions	Prosecutor improperly used post-arrest silence and opinion testimony to bolster guilt	Argued comments/elicited testimony did not deprive due process; any error harmless	Court: No due process violation; claims denied
Admission of prior bad-act (other car thefts) evidence	Prior thefts unduly prejudicial and insufficiently similar	Evidence admissible to prove identity and intent; state rule issue	Court: No federal due process violation shown; claim denied

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (custodial interrogation requires Miranda warnings and right to counsel)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (once counsel is requested, interrogation must cease until counsel present unless defendant initiates)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (Edwards rule not offense-specific)
Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146 (counsel must be present before further interrogation after invocation)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (two-prong ineffective assistance standard)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (harmless-error standard for habeas: substantial and injurious effect)
O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432 (judge must ask whether error substantially influenced verdict; "grave doubts" standard)
Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (harmless-error analysis applies regardless of state-court characterization)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (review limited to state-court record under §2254(d))
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference to state-court adjudications under §2254)
Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168 (prosecutorial misconduct violates due process only if trial so infected as to be unfair)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (prosecutor may not use post-arrest silence to impeach defendant who remained silent in reliance on Miranda)
Anderson v. Charles, 447 U.S. 404 (voluntary statements after Miranda are not "silence" for Doyle purposes)