Thompson v. Runnel, 621 F.3d 1007

Thompson confessed to killing his girlfriend in a custodial interrogation that began without Miranda warnings and continued for several hours.
Thompson later provided post-Miranda confessions and participated in a videotaped reenactment after warnings were finally given.
State courts admitted Thompson's postwarning statements and reenactment; they suppressed prewarning statements and relied on Oregon v. Elstad to affirm admissibility of the later statements.
Thompson challenged the post-Miranda statements in federal habeas corpus under AEDPA; the district court denied relief and the Ninth Circuit initially denied rehearing, with a split on whether Seibert controlled.
The court discusses whether Seibert or Elstad governs AEDPA review, finality principles, and whether the state court's decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.
The court ultimately reverses, holding that Thompson’s postwarning statements were rendered ineffective by a deliberate two-step interrogation under Seibert, and that their admission was reversible error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exhaustion of federal claim	Thompson fairly presented the federal claim to the California courts.	Thompson needed re-exhaustion after Seibert was decided.	Thompson exhausted; Blair retroactivity not required here.
Applicable AEDPA standard (Elstad vs. Seibert) for clearly established federal law	Seibert applies as clearly established law after Thompson's last state-court decision.	Elstad remained the clearly established standard at the time of the state court decision.	Court resolves under AEDPA that Elstad governs the controlling clearly established law; Seibert is not retroactively required to govern this state decision.
Deliberateness of the two-step interrogation	Evidence supports deliberate withholding of warnings to undermine the Miranda warning.	District court did not err in finding no deliberate two-step strategy.	On de novo review, the two-step strategy was deliberate; warnings ineffective.
Curative steps and effectiveness of warnings	Even with a delay, warning curative steps could salvage admissibility.	Lack of curative measures defeats effectiveness of warnings.	Insufficient curative steps; postwarning statements remain ineffective.
Harmlessness of the error	Confession was central and likely prejudicial; its admission affected the verdict.	Video reenactment and other evidence render any error harmless.	Admission of the confession was prejudicial and not harmless error.

Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (deliberate two-step interrogation can require suppression absent curative steps)
Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (subsequent warnings may validate unwarned statements if voluntary)
Carey v. Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2006) (clearly established law refers to holdings as of state-court decision time)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (clarifies 'clearly established law' refers to holdings as of the relevant decision)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (limits AEDPA review to record before state court decision)