File Na me: 08a0582n.06 Filed: September

30, 2008 NOT RECOMMENDED F OR FUL L -TEXT PUB L I CATI ON

No. 06-4438 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT DERRI CK BI RD, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,

v. ANTHO NY J. BRI GANO, War den, Respondent-Appe llee. ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E SO UT HE RN D IS T R IC T O F O H IO

/ Be for e : M AR TIN , R OG ER S, a nd SU TTON , C ir c uitJudg e s. BOYCE F. M ARTIN, JR., Circ uit Jud ge. Der rick Bird, a state prisoner, petitioned t he dis tr ic t c ourt

fo r a wr it of fe de ra l hab e a s cor pu s. B ir d cla ims that hi s F if th A me ndme nt r ig ht a g a ins t

se lf -i nc ri min a tio n w a s v iol a te d w he n, a ft e r bein g giv en h is Miranda wa rn ing s and

wa ivi ngtho se ri g hts , p oli c e fa ile d to ce a se qu e sti on inghim a ft e r h e su

bs e qu e ntl y

inv ok e d h is r ig ht t o r e ma in s ile nt. Un d er d ef er en t i al h ab ea s re v i ew , h o we v er , we ca n n o tagr ee . W e t h er ef o re af fi rm t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt 's denial of B ird’s habe as petition. I. I n M ay 20 01 , M idd le town, Oh io p oli c e su sp e c te d D e rr ic k B ir d o f m ur de r a nd c on ta c te d h im. Bird e ventually

went to the poli ce station wher e officer s interviewe d him in a locked interr og ation

ro om. Th e y

g ave him

his Miranda wa

rn ing s, he sig ne d a wai ver card , a nd he su bmi tte d toNo. 06-4438

Bird v. Brigano Pag e 2 qu e sti on ing . A ft e r a

le ng thy state me nt, B ir d w a s arr e ste d a nd bo ok e d. He fi le d a mo tio n to su pp re ss his statement, which wa s den i ed , and he was eve ntually convicted of

ag g ravated murder

and

a g g ra vate d r ob be ry

and se nte nc e d to c on se c uti ve te rm s o f l if e imp ri so nme nt. The Ohio Court of Appea ls aff irmed Bird’s convic tions on direct appe al, Sta te v . B ird , 2003 WL21 13 52 72 (O hio Ap p. 12 Di st
. Ma y 19 , 2 00 3) , a

nd the Oh io S up re me Cou

rt de nie d le a ve to appea l. B ird filed a fede ral habea s corpus petition in the district court a lleg ing that: (1) af ter g iving him his required Miranda wa rn ing s, poli ce vi olat e d h is F if th a nd F ourt e e nth

Am e ndme nt r ig hts when th e y f

a il e d to h o n o r h is d e ma

n d s to e n d c u s to d ia l inte r r o g a ti o n ; an d ( 2 ) h is F o u rth and Four teenth Amendme nt rig hts were violated because the war rant for his arr est was not asse ssed for prob a b le c a u s e , d id n o t c o n ta in

c a s e - s p e c if

ic f a c ts in th e a f f id a v it , an d

le d to anin c r iminating

s t at em en t
. T h e s t at e f

i l eda r et u rn o f w ri t , an d Bi rdfi l eda r ep l y . T h e m agi s t ra t e j u d ge

rec ommended that B ird’s petition be denie d as without merit and that the district cour t not issue a

cer tificate of appea lability

. After

Bird’ s objection, the district court a dopted the mag istrate judg e’s

rec ommendation and denie d Bird’ s petition, but i t sustained his objections insofar a s the court g rante d Bird a

cer tificate of appea lability with r espec t to his c laim tha t his rig ht to rema in silent was violated. T h i s C o u rt denied B ird a c ertificate of a ppeala bility on his second cla im, and we now addre ss his first. II. We reviewa district cour

t’s leg al conc lusions and mix ed questions of law and fa ct de novo, and we revie w its factua l findings f or cle ar e rror . Armstrong v. Morgan , 372 F.3d 778, 781 (6th Cir. 20 04 ); Lucas v. O’D ea , 179 F.3d 412, 416 (6th Cir. 1999). Under t he Antiterr orism and Eff ectiveNo. 06-4438

Bird v. Brigano Pag e 3 Death Penalty

Act of 1996, a

fede ral c ourt may

not set aside a state judg ment sustaining a prisoner’ s convic t ion without finding that the de cision (1) is “c ontrary to,” or a n “unre asonable application” of , “ c le arl y e sta bli sh e d f e de ra l la w, ” or (2 ) w a s b a se d o n a

n “ unre a so na

ble de te rm inatio n o f t

he fa c ts in light of the e vidence prese nted” to the state courts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A s tate c ourt

de c isi on is “ c on tr ary to ” es ta

bli sh e d f e de ra l la w i f t he state c ourt

arr ive s at a

c on c lus ion

op po sit e to that re a c he d by the Sup re me Court on a qu e sti on of law or if it de c ide s a c a se differ ently

than the Supreme Court on materially indisti ng uis h ab l e facts. W illiams v. Taylor , 529 U. S. 3 62 , 4 12 -1 3 ( 20 00 ). A s tate cou rt deci si on is a n “ unre a so na

ble a pp lic a tio n” of

c le arl y

e sta bli sh e d fede ral lawif

the state c ourt

ide nti fi e d th e c or

re c t le g a l pr inc ipl e but unre a so na bly ap p l i ed i t to the fac ts of the prisoner ’s ca se. Id. a t 4 1 3

. A n d a lt h o u g h“ c le ar ly

e s ta b li s h e d f e d era l law” in § 2254( d)(1) simply “re fer s to the holdings” of the Supreme Court, c ourts may look to the lower c ourts of appe als’ decisions to inform the analy sis of Supreme Court holdings in de termining whether a lega l principle has been c lear ly established by

the Supreme Court. Here ford v. W arren , 5 3 6 F. 3 d 5 2 3 , 5 2 8 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Hill v. Hofbauer , 337 F.3d 706, 716 ( 6th Cir. 2003)). III

. Th e F if th A me ndme nt p ro vid e s th a t “ [n]o p e rs on . . . s ha ll b e c omp e lle d in

any c ri min a l c a se to b e a wi tne ss a g a ins t hi mse lf

.” U. S. Co ns t. a

me nd . V . T he g ov e rnme nt m ay no t us e state me nts

o b t ai n edfr o m a s u s p ec td u ri n g a c u s t o d i al i n t erro gat i o n u n l es s t h e su s p ec t wa s gi v en t h e w arn i n gs of Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966), and waives his rights “voluntar ily , knowing ly , and intelligently .” Id . I f, af

ter a valid waiver , the suspect “indicate s in a ny manner , at any

time . . . during questioning, that he wishes to r emain silent, the interrog ation must cease .” Id. at 4 7 3 -7 4

. Al t h o u ghNo. 06-4438

Bird v. Brigano Pag e 4 sufficie nt reque sts to invoke the rig ht to rema in silent must be “scrupulously honored,” Michigan v. Mosley , 423 U.S. 96, 103 (1975) (inter nal quotations omitt ed), the Supr em e C ourt has not sp e c if ic a lly a dd re sse d w hat qu a lif

ie s a s a su ff

ic ie nt p os t- wa ive r i nv oc a tio n o f t he ri g ht t o r e ma in silent. I n the context of a post-w aiver reque st for counse l, however , the Court has stated that “ if a suspect make s a re fer ence to an attorne y that is ambiguous or

equivoca l in that a rea sonable off icer in l ig ht o f t

he c ir c ums tanc e s w ou ld h ave un de rs too d o nly that th e su sp e c t might be invoking the rig ht to counsel,” the n police ar e not re quired to ce ase que stioning. Davis v. U .S. , 5 1 2 U

. S. 4 5 2 , 459 (1 99 4) (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) (“ [T]he su sp e c t mu st u nam big uo us ly

re qu e st c ouns e l.” ); se e als o McG raw v. Holland , 2 5 7 F. 3 d 5 1 3 , 5 1 9 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ap p l yi n g Da v is to an invocation of the rig ht to remain silent). Withthe se pr inc ipl e s in

min d, we tur

n to B ir d’ s tw o p ri mary

argume nts on a

pp e a l. H e fi rs t

argue s th a t th e Oh io C ourt of Ap pe a ls a

pp lie d la w “ c on tr ary

to” Sup re me Court

law b y re lyingon ly on its own Ohio case la

w, which he claims failed to f ollow Supre me Court prec edent. This oug ht not delay us long. The Ohio Court of Appea ls relied primar ily on State v. Murphy , 7 47 N. E. 2d 76 5 ( Oh io 2001), a case which applied, quoted, a nd cited Da v is and properly identified t he princ iple that police need only cea se an inter

rog ation if the suspec t’s reque st is “unambiguous.” Id. a t 77 8. An d th e Oh io Court of Appea ls itself ex plained this principle in languag e para lleling lang uag e in Davis. State v. Bi rd , 2003 WL 21135272 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. May 19, 2003). This is enoug h under the defe rential AEDPA standar d to conclude tha t the state court de cision was not objectively unrea sonable. B ut we

a lso ob se rv e that it is dif

fi c ult fo r a

fe de ra l c ourt

to s ay that a state c ourt

a c te d c on tr ary

to S up re me C o urt law whe n the Supreme Court ha s not specifica lly addre ssed the question

. See Careyv.No. 06-4438

Bird v. Brigano Pag e 5 Mu sla din , 549 U.S. 70 (2006). Se c on d, Bird point s to tw o in c ide nts that he c la ims a mou nte d to un e qu ivo c a l de mand s to

cea se questioning. The first incident occ urre d about a ha lf an hour into the inter rog ation, when B ird stated that “the re’ s no sense me sitting he re try ing to sa y what happe ned with me . . . bec ause a s usual, when it come s to Derr ick Bird, he’s guilty .” He then stood up, saying, “ You take me in; ge t bo ok e d, man. ” Th e de te c tiv e s tol d him to sit ba c k d ow n. B ir d th e n c on tin ue d to ans we r q

ue sti on s. Th e se c on d in c ide nt o c c ur re d s ome tim e late r, wh e n a thi rd de te c tiv e e nte re d th e ro om an d told him : “This is y our cha

nce to talk a

bout it. You been talkin g about it [ to others].” Bird r eplied: “Eve ry thing’ s rig ht there in the pa per. I ’m done talkingabout it.” Bird a rgues that his standing up, espec ially when c oupled with his later stateme nt that he was

“ do ne ta lki nga

bo ut i t,” co ul d b e vie we d a s an invo c a tio n o f h is r ig ht t o s ile nc e . A nd take n in isolation, out of context , that is not an unrea sonable c onclusion. But conte x t m at t er s . When Bird stood up and talked about g etting taken in (despite alrea dy beingat the police station) the state cour t was not unre asonable in finding that his actions did not amount to an “u n am b i guous” re quest for counsel. A s t h e district cour t observed, this could re asonably be interpr eted a s simply an ac t of frus tr a ti o n , n o t a

na tt e mp t t o e n d

th e inte r v ie w . A n d

th e “ p a p e r ” B ir d r e f e r r e d to w a s n o t a

s worn statement he ha d made but wa s instead, as the O hio Court of Appea ls found, a li st of the witnesse s the police had rec ently spoken t o alongwith statements they had made incriminating Bird. I ndeed, the Ohio Court of Appe als, the mag istrate judg e, and the di strict court all reviewe d the videotape of the police inter

rog ation in this case bef

ore c oncluding that Bird’ s supposed invocations of his rig ht to r e ma in s ile nt w e re ambi g uo us .No. 06-4438

Bird v. Brigano Pag e 6 Moreove r, eve n if we w ere inclined to ag ree with Bird, the s t at e court’s decision did not

a mou nt t o a n unr e a so na

ble a pp lic a tio n of fe de ra l la

w i n li g ht o f r e le va

nt p re c e de nt. F or

e xamp le , in McG raw v. Holland , 257 F.3d 513 ( 6th C i r. 2001), this Court gr anted pe titioner’s habe as re lief, concludingthat she had una mbiguously

invoked her

rig ht to remain silent when she re p ea t ed that she “didn’t wa

nt to talk about it” eig ht or nine times. Id. a t 517- 18 ; see also Ande rson v. Terhune , 516 F.3d 781, 786 (9 t h C i r. 2008) (e n banc) (holding unrea sonable a state cour

t’s conclusion that the invocation of the rig ht to remain silent was ambiguous whe re “ the def endant not only

use[d] the fac ially unambig uous words ‘I

plead the F ifth,’ but surround[ed] that invocation wit h a cle ar de sire not to talk any

more” ). These case s set a standard B ird ca nnot meet, and thus the state c ourt did not

unre a so na

bly a pp ly fe de ra l la w i n h old ingthat B ir d’ s invo c a tio ns we re ins uf fi c ie nt. I V. For the fore g oing r easons, we AFF I RM the district court' s denial of ha beas r elief.