Thompson v. Runnels
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11945
9th Cir.2011Background
- Antwion Thompson killed his girlfriend Bivins in 1998 and initially confessed to police before Miranda warnings were given.
- Thompson was interrogated for hours in a small break room, during which detectives fabricated an eyewitness account and pressed for admissions to place him at the scene.
- Thompson eventually admitted to being at Bivins’ house and stabbing her; after this unwarned confession, officers gave Miranda warnings and Thompson repeated his statements.
- The following morning Thompson was re-interviewed and later participated in a videotaped reenactment, with further questioning before any new warnings.
- California courts upheld the post-Miranda statements as voluntary; the district court denied habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit initially reviewed under AEDPA standards.
- Moore en banc questions and Seibert/Elstad interplay arose after Seibert was decided; the majority ultimately vacated prior opinion and granted relief, reversing under AEDPA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state court’s Elstad application was contrary to clearly established federal law. | Thompson: Seibert governs; Elstad misapplied. | State: Elstad controlled; Seibert not clearly established at the time. | Yes; state court decision contrary to clearly established law. |
| Whether the two-step interrogation was a deliberate withholding of warnings. | Evidence supports deliberate withholding to undermine warnings. | No evidence of deliberate policy or intent; withholding not shown. | Deliberate withholding found; requires suppression of first postwarning confession. |
| Whether curative steps rendered postwarning statements admissible. | Curative steps were insufficient; Seibert requires curative measures before postwarning statements. | Adequate curative measures were taken (time/place break, warnings, reenactment). | Second postwarning video reenactment admissible; first postwarning confession excluded or harmless error under analysis. |
| Whether Thompson exhausted his Seibert claim for AEDPA review. | Thompson fairly presented Seibert issue to state courts; exhausted. | Blair exhaustion concerns; Seibert raised after last state decision; not exhausted. | Thompson exhausted; Blair not required to be re-exhausted under these circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (U.S. 2004) (deliberate two-step questioning can require suppression absent curative steps)
- Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1985) (subsequent warnings after unwarned but voluntary confession may be admissible)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (clarifies 'clearly established' standard under AEDPA refers to holdings as of decision time)
- Cullen v. Pinholster, 131 S. Ct. 1388 (U.S. 2011) (limits AEDPA review to record before state court decision; finality considerations)
- Spisak v. Smith, 130 S. Ct. 676 (U.S. 2010) (discusses temporal cutoff for clearly established law under AEDPA)
- Andrade v. barna, 538 U.S. 63 (U.S. 2003) (defines clearly established federal law as holdings of Supreme Court decisions)