Jessie Rodriguez v. Mike McDonald
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18919
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- At age 14, Jessie Rodriguez was arrested for a 2005 drive-by shooting that killed Cynthia Portillo and wounded Manuel Penaloza; police recovered two handguns from a van and witnesses implicated occupants.
- Detectives interviewed Rodriguez at a station, asked pre‑Miranda questions, then read Miranda warnings; Rodriguez twice asked for an attorney during the first interview.
- Despite the invocation, detectives continued interrogation, implied cooperation would produce leniency ("save your life"), and suggested others had already implicated him; Rodriguez later gave a written confession at the juvenile facility.
- A fitness hearing showed Rodriguez had borderline intellectual functioning (IQ ~77) and ADHD; the juvenile court transferred him for adult prosecution.
- At trial the confession (and pre‑Miranda questioning about a fresh tattoo) was admitted; the jury convicted Rodriguez of second‑degree murder and attempted murder and imposed an 84‑years‑to‑life sentence.
- On federal habeas review, the Ninth Circuit held the state courts unreasonably found detectives honored Rodriguez’s invocation of counsel, found his post‑invocation waiver invalid, and granted relief unless the State retries him promptly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detectives honored Rodriguez’s Miranda invocation and ceased interrogation | Rodriguez: detectives continued express questioning after he asked for an attorney, so interrogation continued in violation of Miranda/Edwards | State: detectives stopped questioning; any later statements were volunteered/initiated by Rodriguez | Held: Videotape/transcript show police continued custodial questioning after invocation; state factual finding unreasonable |
| Whether Rodriguez validly waived his right to counsel after invocation | Rodriguez: waiver was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary given age, IQ, ADHD, and coercive promises of leniency | State: any post‑invocation statements were voluntary and initiated by Rodriguez | Held: Waiver invalid — police badgering and leniency promises overbore his will; Edwards prohibits further interrogation absent initiation plus valid waiver |
| Whether admission of the coerced confession was harmless error | Rodriguez: confession was central, no physical evidence, jury questioned confession credibility — error was not harmless | State: trial evidence sufficient; any error harmless | Held: Not harmless — confession was highly influential, used in gang enhancement theory, and likely affected verdict and sentence |
| Standard of federal habeas review under AEDPA | Rodriguez: state court’s factual findings unreasonable given videotape evidence; de novo review warranted on Miranda claim | State: AEDPA deference precludes relief | Held: AEDPA overcome for the disputed factual finding (videotape contradicted state finding); legal issues reviewed de novo and relief granted unless retrial occurs |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (requires warnings and counsel presence during custodial interrogation)
- Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (police must cease interrogation after invocation of right to counsel; reinitiation only if suspect initiates and valid waiver)
- Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291 (defines "interrogation" to include express questioning or words officers should know likely to elicit incriminating responses)
- Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 (presumes subsequent waivers invalid when police-initiated questioning follows invocation of counsel)
- J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (child’s age informs custody/Miranda analysis)
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (factors in assessing minors’ capacity to waive rights)
- Collazo v. Estelle, 940 F.2d 411 (9th Cir.) (police statements that it would be ‘‘worse’’ if suspect consulted counsel render later confession involuntary)
- Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412 (waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)