Stacey Dyer v. Tina Hornbeck
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2557
9th Cir.2013Background
- Dyer was convicted in California on first degree felony murder, second degree robbery, and kidnapping related to DJ Hunter’s death (2004).
- Police obtained a search warrant for Dyer’s Fowler home and detained her in a patrol car during the search (late March 2002).
- Dyer agreed to accompany detectives to the sheriff’s division; interview began about 30 minutes after arrival and lasted 3 hours 45 minutes.
- During the interview, Dyer was told she was not in custody and was free to leave; she was never handcuffed.
- Prosecution introduced excerpts from the interview at trial; state courts denied suppression; AEDPA relief was sought in federal district court and denied; appellate court granted COA.
- Concurrence by Judge M. Smith alongside the lead opinion noted disagreement on custody but agreed to the judgment under AEDPA standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dyer was in custody for Miranda purposes | Dyer argues she was in custody due to detention and interrogation conditions | State courts found she was not in custody under the totality of circumstances | No clear error under AEDPA; fairminded jurists could disagree; habeas relief denied |
| Whether the state court’s Miranda custody determination was unreasonable | Court should have held Dyer in custody requiring Miranda warnings | Court’s decision reasonable under Supreme Court standards | State court not unreasonable under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) |
| Whether AEDPA’s deferential standard precludes relief given the custody question | State court’s custody ruling merits federal review | AEDPA requires deference; no unreasonable application shown | District court’s denial affirmed; AEDPA standard satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1966) (established requirement of warnings in custodial interrogations)
- Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1994) (custody definition depends on restraint on freedom of movement)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1977) (voluntariness and non-custodial questioning when not under arrest)
- California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (voluntary assistance to accompany to the station; not custody in Beheler context)
- Beheler (as cited), 463 U.S. 1121 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1983) (relevance of home setting to custody analysis)
- United States v. Crawford (en banc), 372 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir., 2004) (analysis of custody when defendant volunteered to go to the station; emphasis on not under arrest)
- Kim v. United States, 292 F.3d 969 (9th Cir., 2002) (factors relevant to custody and awareness of being not free to leave)
- Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1995) (custody as mixed question of law and fact; independent review)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2011) (AEDPA deference standard for state-court decisions)
- Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2002) (highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings)
- Rodgers v. Marshall, 678 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir., 2012) (circuit authority on applying Supreme Court precedent to state-court decisions)