Walter Cook, III v. Scott Kernan, 948 F.3d 952

Background

In 1994 Walter Cook was convicted of three 1992 murders in California and sentenced to death; his sentence was later vacated and converted to life without parole after a finding of intellectual disability under Atkins.
Cook gave a videotaped, ~7‑hour custodial interrogation in Oklahoma shortly after his arrest at age 18; he made equivocal/confused admissions to two killings and later repudiated or minimized details at trial.
Mental‑health experts (pre‑ and post‑trial) described borderline/low‑average IQ, learning/attentional deficits, PTSD, dissociation, and high suggestibility; some later opined he likely could not meaningfully understand Miranda warnings.
The California Supreme Court summarily denied Cook’s state habeas petition (except Atkins relief) and declined an evidentiary hearing on an allegation that an officer threatened Cook at gunpoint during a break in the interrogation.
On federal habeas under AEDPA, the district court found Cook’s Miranda waiver not knowing/intelligent but held any Miranda error harmless; the Ninth Circuit (majority) affirms—holding the state court could reasonably conclude waiver and voluntariness, and denying an evidentiary hearing for failure to develop facts.

Issues

Issue	Cook's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1) Did Cook knowingly and intelligently waive Miranda rights?	Cook: cognitive deficits, confusion on tape, and expert opinions show he could not comprehend/adopt waiver.	State: repeated warnings, affirmative responses, coherent answers, prior arrests, and change of mind next day support a valid waiver.	Majority: AEDPA deference—state court reasonably could find waiver valid; no relief. Dissent: waiver invalid.
2) Was the confession involuntary/coerced under the totality of circumstances?	Cook: lengthy custodial interrogation, suggestive questioning, emotional breakdown and mental impairments rendered confession coerced.	State: no overt physical coercion, professional conduct, breaks/food offered, and suspect resisted or gave evasive answers until limited admissions.	Majority: reasonable for state court to conclude confession voluntary; no relief.
3) Did the state court unreasonably apply federal law or make unreasonable factual findings under AEDPA?	Cook: summary denial was unreasonable given undisputed expert evidence and videotape showing incapacity.	State: AEDPA requires deference; fairminded jurists could disagree about application of Miranda/voluntariness.	Held: applying Richter/§2254(d), majority finds no unreasonable application or factfinding; habeas denied.
4) Was Cook entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claim that an officer threatened him at gunpoint?	Cook: alleged gunpoint threat merits hearing; state court refused to develop facts.	State: Cook knew of the allegation long before state proceedings and failed to diligently develop it; §2254(e)(2) bars a federal hearing.	Held: denied—petitioner failed to develop the claim in state court and is not entitled to a federal evidentiary hearing.

Key Cases Cited

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) (intellectually disabled defendants ineligible for death penalty)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (custodial‑interrogation warnings and waiver rules)
Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010) (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent; totality of circumstances inquiry)
Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) (coercive police activity is prerequisite for involuntariness due process claim)
Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA standards: "contrary to" and "unreasonable application")
Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (deference to state court; burden to show no reasonable basis for denial)
Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652 (2004) (deferential AEDPA review of application of general standards)
Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170 (2011) (§2254(d) applies to summary denials; review limited to state‑court record)
Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) (actual‑prejudice standard for habeas review of trial error)
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000) (Miranda as constitutional rule)