James McKinney v. Bonita Hoffner, 830 F.3d 363

Background

McKinney shot and killed his roommate, fled in the victim’s vehicle, and was arrested in Illinois with the victim’s property and a gun; he confessed after a custodial interview.
During a Miranda-advised interview, McKinney said he would “just as soon wait until I get a public defender or whatever,” then almost immediately added “We can talk over all the other circumstances.” Detective Hodshire interjected, “Well that’s fine, but like I said,” before McKinney’s confession.
The trial court suppressed the confession as violating Edwards/Smith; the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed; the Michigan Supreme Court reversed in a one-paragraph order, holding McKinney did not unequivocally request counsel.
McKinney was convicted after the confession was admitted. He sought federal habeas relief claiming the Michigan Supreme Court unreasonably applied federal law by treating his second statement (and the officer’s comment) as permissible and using both statements to find no unequivocal invocation.
The district court granted a conditional writ; the Sixth Circuit reverses, holding AEDPA deference required and that the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hodshire’s interjection was "interrogation" under Innis	Hodshire’s “Well that’s fine, but like I said” was interrogation that made the second statement inadmissible	The brief, unfinished remark was not the functional equivalent of express questioning and thus not interrogation	Held: Not an unreasonable application of Innis to conclude it was not interrogation; AEDPA deference required
Whether McKinney unequivocally invoked right to counsel	McKinney’s “I’d just as soon wait until I get a public defender” was an unambiguous request, so subsequent statements can’t be used to undermine that invocation	The two statements (request + immediate willingness to talk) read together were equivocal; a reasonable officer could think McKinney might be invoking counsel under Davis	Held: Under Davis and AEDPA, a fairminded jurist could find the combined statements were ambiguous, so Michigan Supreme Court’s conclusion was not unreasonable
Whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s one‑paragraph reversal is entitled to AEDPA deference	McKinney argued the state court implicitly treated the officer’s comment as interrogation and erred	State argued the court implicitly found no interrogation and properly applied federal law; AEDPA presumes state courts adjudicate claims on merits	Held: Presume the state court decided interrogation question and apply AEDPA deferential standard
Whether federal habeas relief was warranted (standard of review)	District court erred by failing to apply AEDPA’s deferential standard and relying on state appellate/circuit decisions	State argued relief should be denied because the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling was not objectively unreasonable under Supreme Court precedent	Held: Habeas relief reversed; district court failed to afford required AEDPA deference

Key Cases Cited

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (right to counsel and warnings required before custodial interrogation)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police must cease questioning after an unequivocal request for counsel)
Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (definition of "interrogation": express questioning or its functional equivalent)
Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (post‑request statements produced by further interrogation cannot be used to cast doubt on the initial request)
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (suspect must unambiguously request counsel; ambiguous references do not require cessation)
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (AEDPA presumption that state courts adjudicate federal claims on the merits)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (state courts have leeway in case‑by‑case applications of general rules)
Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (habeas review affords state court decisions the benefit of the doubt)
McNeil v. Wisconsin, 501 U.S. 171 (police may not badger a defendant into waiving previously asserted right to counsel)
Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (habeas relief is an extraordinary remedy)