846 F.3d 203
7th Cir.2017Background
- In 2001 a 16-year-old Germill Murdock was arrested and ultimately convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and aggravated battery with a firearm after two mistrials and a third conviction; his sentences were consecutive.
- Police interrogated Murdock following a traffic stop; he gave a written and videotaped statement after being read Miranda warnings multiple times and signing a waiver; he did not have an attorney or a parent/concerned adult present.
- At trial Detect. Michael Mushinsky testified about Murdock’s admissions that he drove two individuals to a park where they shot the victim; the video and written statements were admitted and played for the jury.
- Murdock later filed a postconviction claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move to suppress the statements as involuntary; state courts held multiple hearings (2007 evidentiary hearing; 2010 suppression hearing).
- The Illinois Supreme Court reviewed only the 2010 suppression-hearing record, found the officer more credible, applied the totality-of-the-circumstances test (considering age, absence of adult/attorney, Miranda waivers, lack of coercion, access to basic needs, demeanor on video) and held the statements voluntary.
- Murdock sought federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief under AEDPA deference, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Murdock's statements were involuntary given his juvenile status and lack of a parent/attorney | Murdock: 16, questioned ~7 hours, no juvenile officer/concerned adult present, felt scared, was promised release if he named the shooter, so waiver was involuntary | State: Miranda warnings were read and waived repeatedly; no threats or promises; he had access to food/restroom; demeanor on video showed no distress; investigator testified he would have allowed a guardian | Court: Under totality of circumstances, statements were voluntary; Illinois Supreme Court’s application of law was reasonable |
| Whether AEDPA deference applies (i.e., claim adjudicated on the merits) | Murdock: Illinois Supreme Court did not adjudicate his Strickland ineffective-assistance claim on the merits because earlier proceedings differed | State: The Strickland prejudice inquiry depends on whether a suppression motion would have succeeded; that question was decided on the merits in the suppression proceedings | Court: AEDPA applies because the suppression inquiry resolved the dispositive Strickland prejudice prong |
| Whether the state court made an unreasonable factual finding (re: reliance on videotape/demeanor) | Murdock: Court improperly relied on recorded demeanor to infer condition during whole interview; grandmother’s 2007 testimony should have been considered | State: Illinois court considered video and testimony, and grandmother’s 2007 testimony was not presented at the 2010 hearing for the factfinder to consider | Court: Factfinding was reasonable; videotape and hearing testimony supported the court’s conclusions; exclusion of earlier grandmother testimony was not error |
Key Cases Cited
- Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596 (juvenile confession after long nocturnal interrogation weighed involuntary)
- Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49 (juvenile held without friendly adult and confession found involuntary)
- In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (juveniles entitled to special caution in custodial proceedings)
- Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (voluntariness determined by totality of the circumstances)
- Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707 (consideration of juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, intelligence in waiver analysis)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (standards for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (AEDPA unreasonable-application standard explanation)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (deference required under AEDPA)
- Hardaway v. Young, 302 F.3d 757 (7th Cir. discussion of juvenile confession totality test)
- A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. juvenile confession found involuntary)
- Etherly v. Davis, 619 F.3d 654 (7th Cir. on evaluation of juvenile confessions under totality)
- Gonzales v. Mize, 565 F.3d 373 (standard of review for habeas denial)