McInnis v. Bolin
0:22-cv-03064
D. Minnesota
May 27, 2025
Check Treatment
Docket
                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
                         DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 

JQUAN LEEARTHUR MCINNIS,              Case No. 22-CV-3064 (PJS/DLM) 
                  Petitioner, 

                                                       ORDER 
WILLIAM BOLIN, Warden, 
                  Respondent. 

     Roy G. Spurbeck, MINNESOTA STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER, for 
     petitioner. 
     Matthew Frank, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, and Nicole 
     Cornale, HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, for respondent. 
     This matter is before the Court on petitioner Jquan MclInnis’s objection to the 
February 6, 2025, Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Douglas L. 
Micko.  Judge Micko recommends denying McInnis’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. 
The Court has conducted a de novo review.  See
28 U.S.C. § 636
(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. 
P. 72(b).  Based on that review, the Court adopts the R&R. 
     This is a difficult case.  Like Judge Micko, this Court harbors “grave doubt” about 
whether the admission of McInnis’s unconstitutionally obtained confession was 
harmless, specifically with respect to the State’s need to prove beyond a reasonable 
doubt that McInnis intended to kill when he fired the shot that killed J.R.  Given the trial 

                                    □□□ 

court’s repeated references to what was omitted from McInnis’s confession in its brief 
transferred-intent analysis, the Court struggles to understand how the Minnesota 
Supreme Court could have determined that admitting the confession was harmless, let 
alone harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 
     That said, and as the R&R ably explains, the Court is constrained by the 
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) and controlling precedent 
interpreting that statute.  After much reflection, the Court reluctantly concludes that the 
Minnesota Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, although likely wrong, is not “so 
obviously wrong that its error lies beyond any possibility for fairminded 
disagreement.”  Shinn v. Kayer,
592 U.S. 111
, 118 (2020) (per curiam) (internal quotation 
marks omitted).  Therefore, the Court must deny the petition. 
                                  ORDER 
     Based on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court OVERRULES 
petitioner’s objection [ECF No. 19] and ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 18].  IT IS HEREBY 
ORDERED THAT: 
     1.     Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus [ECF No. 1] is DENIED. 
     2.     This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 
     3.     A certificate of appealability is GRANTED as to the following issue only: 
           “Did the Minnesota Supreme Court unreasonably apply federal law, as 

                                    -2- 

          determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, when it concluded 
          that any error in admitting Jquan MclInnis’s unconstitutionally obtained 
          confession was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?” 
    LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 

Dated: May 27, 2025                      /s/ Patrick J. Schiltz 
                                      Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge 
                                      United States District Court 

                                   -3-