402 F. App'x 997
6th Cir.2010Background
- Yenawine surrendered after indictment and was extradited from Indiana to Kentucky.
- During interrogation, Yenawine suggested he might need an attorney and provided his attorney’s card.
- Police erroneously informed him that his attorney could not represent him due to a conflict, and he confessed on a recorded statement.
- The confession was admitted at trial; Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed most convictions but held the confession admissible.
- Yenawine petitioned for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254; the district court denied relief; this court reviews de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state-court admission of Yenawine's confession violated clearly established federal law. | Yenawine contends Abela controls; the statement was elicited after an ambiguous request for counsel. | Commonwealth argues Davis standard; no unambiguous request for counsel was made. | Contrary to clearly established federal law; grant writ and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abela v. Martin, 380 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2004) (habeas relief when interrogation resembles coerced or ambiguous invocation of counsel)
- Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1994) (unambiguous request for counsel required to trigger exclusion of statements)