Patrick Glass v. People of the State of Calif.
687 F. App'x 538
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- In 2006 Glass’s 14-year-old stepdaughter accused him of raping her and her younger sister; Glass gave a nearly two-hour police interview and initially denied sexual contact but later said it was “possible” he touched a stepdaughter’s breast.
- Detective Mark Cordova obtained admissions in the first interview, told Glass he was in custody, and continued questioning without giving Miranda warnings; Cordova left to arrange a polygraph and later said he realized the Miranda omission only after reviewing the tape.
- Two days later Cordova conducted a 13-minute reinterview in which he read Glass his Miranda rights and asked Glass to confirm prior admissions.
- At a pretrial hearing the state trial court found Cordova’s failure to give Miranda warnings in the first interview was inadvertent; the California Court of Appeal affirmed that the omission was not deliberate.
- Glass petitioned for federal habeas relief, arguing the two-step interrogation violated Miranda jurisprudence (particularly Missouri v. Seibert); the district court dismissed his petition and the Ninth Circuit affirmed under AEDPA standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state court decision was "contrary to" clearly established federal law (Seibert) | Glass: Seibert controls and the two-step interrogation was effectively a deliberate waiver-then-warning technique invalidating subsequent statements | State/Respondent: State court reasonably found the failure to warn was not deliberate, so Seibert does not apply | Held: Not contrary to clearly established law; state court did not run afoul of Supreme Court precedent |
| Whether the state court made an unreasonable factual determination about deliberateness | Glass: The record supports that the two-step technique was deliberate and the factual finding was unreasonable | State: The trial and appellate courts’ finding that the omission was inadvertent is supported by the record | Held: Not an unreasonable determination of fact under AEDPA; appellate finding was plausible |
| Whether federal habeas relief is available under AEDPA standards | Glass: Errors in Miranda application require relief | State: AEDPA deference bars relief where fairminded jurists could disagree | Held: Habeas relief denied; AEDPA standard precludes relief here |
| Whether the later Miranda warnings cured the prior unwarned statements | Glass: Subsequent warnings were tainted by the prior unwarned custodial interrogation | State: Reinterview with Miranda warnings and brief confirmation was permissible given the circumstances | Held: Court accepted state-court resolution that statements were admissible under governing standards and AEDPA review |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda requires warnings before custodial interrogation)
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004) (plurality and concurrence discuss two-step interrogation and when post-warning statements are admissible)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference: state-court decisions must be given deference unless unreasonable)
- Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (clarifies standards for "fairminded jurists" under habeas review)
- Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63 (2003) (defines when a state-court decision is "contrary to" clearly established federal law)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (framework for "contrary to" and "unreasonable application" under AEDPA)
- Stanley v. Cullen, 633 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for district court denials of habeas petitions)
- Reyes v. Lewis, 833 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2016) (recognizes Justice Kennedy’s concurrence in Seibert as clearly established law for AEDPA review)
- Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (explains when factual determinations are "unreasonable" under AEDPA)