Walker v. Heimgartner
17-3151
| 10th Cir. | Dec 7, 2017Background
- Michael D. Walker was convicted in Kansas of first‑degree felony murder and criminal discharge of a firearm after a drive‑by shooting that killed a 16‑month‑old child; he is serving life.
- At a police interrogation Walker initially waived Miranda rights, later admitted to driving the car, and then requested counsel; the Kansas courts held statements after the request were inadmissible.
- Police nevertheless used information from both admissible and inadmissible portions of the interview and independent investigation to locate the maroon vehicle and its owner; trial court denied suppression of the vehicle evidence.
- Walker filed federal habeas claims raising (1) due process suppression arguments (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree/Wong Sun), (2) a Fourth Amendment probable‑cause/arrest challenge, and (3) ineffective assistance for counsel’s alleged failure to seek Kansas Supreme Court review of a state appellate decision.
- The district court denied habeas relief and declined to issue a certificate of appealability (COA); the Tenth Circuit reviewed whether Walker made a "substantial showing" to warrant a COA and denied it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of vehicle evidence as fruit of Miranda violation (Due Process) | Walker: vehicle and derivative evidence were discovered only because of statements made after he requested counsel; all such evidence should be suppressed under Wong Sun. | State: officers developed the vehicle via independent investigation and admissible statements; inadmissible statements did not directly lead to the car. | COA denied. Kansas courts reasonably found an independent source/inevitable discovery; Walker failed to make a substantial showing of constitutional error. |
| Arrest lacked probable cause (Fourth Amendment) | Walker: arrest was unsupported by probable cause, so evidence from the seizure should be excluded. | State/district court: Walker had full and fair opportunity to litigate this claim in state court; Stone v. Powell bars federal habeas relief on Fourth Amendment exclusionary claims after adequate state litigation. | COA denied. Stone bars relief here and the state courts reasonably applied governing standards. |
| Ineffective assistance for not filing petition for review with Kansas Supreme Court | Walker: counsel was ineffective for not seeking review of the Kansas Court of Appeals’ 2012 habeas decision. | State: counsel did file multiple petitions for review in other proceedings; in any event, ineffective assistance during state collateral proceedings is not a basis for federal relief under 28 U.S.C. §2254. | COA denied. Such ineffectiveness in state collateral proceedings is not cognizable on federal habeas; no debatable constitutional error shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree/independent source doctrine)
- Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (exclusionary rule and derivative evidence principle)
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (limits federal habeas review of Fourth Amendment claims when full and fair state litigation occurred)
- Miller‑El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (standards for certificate of appealability)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for COA: reasonable jurists could debate dispositive rulings)
- United States v. Olivares‑Rangel, 458 F.3d 1104 (10th Cir. rule on fruit‑of‑the‑poisonous‑tree and suppression analysis)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable‑cause/totality‑of‑the‑circumstances standard)
- Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31 (probable cause for arrest standard)
- Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200 (unlawful custodial seizure and related suppression principles)