05- 4196- pr

A co st a v. A rtuz UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F ORTH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT
A ugus tT erm , 2007 ( A r gued: A pr i l 7, 2008 D eci ded: A ugus t4, 2009) D ocketN o. 05- 4196- pr
V I CTOR A C OS TA , P e tit io n e r-Ap p e lla n t,

— v . — C. A R TUZ , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , G r e e n H a v e n C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y, R es pondent

-Appel l ee.

____________________ B efor e: W AL KER , C AB RAN ES , and R AG GI , C i rcui tJud ges.

A p p ea l from the d en ial o f a p eti ti o n fo r a w ri t of h ab ea s co rpu s filed b ya N ew Y o rk St at e pr i s onerw ho chal l enges hi s m ur derconvi ct ion o n t he gr ound thatt he tr i al j uryw as al l ow ed t o heara conf

es s i on t hathe m ad e i n vi ol at i on of r i ght s r ecogni zed i n M i r anda v. A ri zo n a, 38 4 U
. S
. 4 3 6 (19 6 6 ), an d R h o d e Islan d v . Inn is, 4 4 6 U
. S
. 2 9 1 (19 8 0 ). A F F I R MED .2 ____________________
M ON I C A R. J AC OB SO N , N e w Y o rk , N e w Y o rk , f orP et i t i oner -Appel l ant . M OR GAN J. D ENN EHY (L e o n a rd J o b lo v e , V ic to r B a ra ll, on the br i ef ), o n b e h a lf of C har l es J
. H ynes , D i s t r i ct A t t orney , K i ngs C ount y , B r ookl yn, N ew Y o rk , f orR es pondent

-Appel l ee .

R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui t

Judge : Pet i t i onerV i ct orA cos t a w as convi ct ed aft er a j uryt r i al on one countof m ur deri n the
se c o n d d e g re e o n a th e o r y o f f e lo n ym u rd e r. S e e N .Y . P e n a l L a w § 1 2 5 .2 5 [ 3 ]. P re se n tly i ncar cer at ed s ervi ng an i ndet erm i nat e pr i s on t erm of tw enty - foury ear s t o l i fe, A c o sta a p p e a ls fr om t he J ul y 20, 2005 j udgm ent of t he U ni t ed S t at es D i s t r i ct C our t for t he East ern D i s tr i ct of N ew Y or k ( D avi d G
. T r ager , J udge) , w hi ch deni ed hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus p u rsua n t t o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4
. S ee A co sta v . A rtu z, 3 7 5 F
. S u p p . 2 d 1 7 3 (E
. D
. N
. Y
. 2 0 0 5 ). A cos t a cl ai m s , i nt eral i a, t hathi s convi ct i on i s i nfec t ed bycon sti tut i onal err orbeca us e the j ur yw as al l ow ed t o heara conf es s i on m ade byA cos t a i n purpor t ed vi ol at i on of M i r anda v. A r i zona, 384 U
. S. 436 ( 1966) , and R hode I s l and v. I nni s , 446 U
. S. 291 ( 1980)
. W e gr ant ed
a c e rtific a te o f

a p p e a lab ili tyo n tw o iss u e s r e la ted to th is c laim : (1 ) w h e th e r A c o sta
a d e q u a telye x h a u ste d sta te r e m e d ies b e f o re se e k in g f

e d e ra l h a b e a s re lief

b y“ f a irly pr es ent i ng” hi s M i r anda/ I nni s cl ai m t o t he s t at e cour t s , and ( 2) w hetherA cos t a demonstr at edT hi s opi ni on gener al l ydoes notci t e t o t r ans cr i pt p ag es b ec aus e, w i t h l i m i t ed 1 exce pt i ons , t he r el evanthear i ng and tr i al tr ans cr i pt s w er e noti ncl uded i n t he r ecor d on appea l
. I n r es pons e t o t hi s cour t ’ s or derdi r ect i ng s ubm i s s i on of the tr ans cr i pt s , t he part i es advi s ed thatt heycoul d no l onger be l ocat ed. T he cour t t hen i s s ued an or deri ndi cat i ng t hat w e w oul d as s um e t he accur acy of t he t r ans cr i pt exce rpt s ci t ed i n t he part i es ’ br i efs and the di s t r i ct cour t ’ s opi ni on unl es s ei t her par t y obj ect ed w i t hi n t hi r t yday s . See A cos t a v. A r tuz, N o. 05- 4196- pr( 2d C i r . Sept
. 22, 2008)
. N o obj ect i on havi ng been r ai s ed, w e r el yon t he p arti es’ b ri ef

s an d the o p in ion b elow in rec o n stru cti n g the re co rd o f th e state c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s in th is a c tio n . 3 M i r anda/ I nni s err orw arr ant i ng habea s r el i ef. W e answ er both ques t i ons i n the nega t i ve and,
a c c o rd in g ly , af

f irm th e d istric t co u rt ju d g m e n t. I . Backg r ound A
. T he M ur derof D enni s C et t er Yv on n e M a r t i n e z , a Br o o k l yn p r o s t i tu t e , t e s t i f i e d th a ts o me t i me b e t we e n 7 : 0 0 p . m.
a n d 8 :0 0 p .m . o n N o v e m b e r 1 , 1 9 9 1 , V icto r A c o sta , w h o m sh e k n e w a s “ G re e n E y e s,” to ld hert hat he “w as goi ng t o cat ch a he rb, ” s t r eets l ang thatM art i nez unde r s t ood t o m ean that A cos t a w as goi ng t o r ob s om eone. S o o n there af ter, A co sta en tered an ab an d o n ed fa ctory 1 bui l di ng atN or t h 10t h St r eetand K entA venue a nd, arm ed w i t h a kni fe, demanded m oney fr om D ebr a Perr y , another pr os t i tut e w ho l i ved i n t he bui l di ng, and D enni s C et t er , t he man
w i t h w h o m P e r ry h a d s p e n tp a r to f t h e d a y. P erryt est i fi ed that she knew A cost a from the n ei gh bo rhood , hav i ng seen him al m ost dai l yfort he l as tm ont h, and havi ng us ed drugs w i t h hi m . A s A cos t a s ear ched thr ough t he coupl e’ s cl ot hi ng l ooki ng form oney , Perr y r eac hed fora bas ebal l bat , butC ett ert ook i tfr om4

h er a n d u sed the b at t o h itA co s ta . A fi ghtens ued dur i ng w hi ch A cos t a s t abbed Cet t er th ir te e n tim e s , in f

lic tin g w o u n d s th a t w o u ld u ltim a te ly ca u s e C e tte r’ s d e a th
. D arr y l H i ggs , a homel es s drug us erw ho l i ved w i t h Per r yatt he fa ct oryand w ho w as
n ea rby at the t im e of the i n cide n t, test ifi ed to hea ri n g P erryscre am ing an d , m o m en ts l ater,
s eei ng A cos t a – w hom he had know n for s ever al y ear s as “G r een Ey es ” – fl ee the bui l di ng. S o o n a f ter , C e tter a lso e m e rg e d f ro m th e b u ild in g , co v e re d in b lo o d , an d c o llap s e d in to H ig g s ’s a rm s . P e rr yw a s h y s te ri c a l a n d s c re a m in g a b o u t “ G re e n E y e s .” Y vo nn e M art i nez tes t i fi ed thatapp roxi m at el yfi ft ee n m i nu t es aft er A cost a had fi rs t to ld h e r of h is ro b b e ry p lan s, d e f e n d a n t re tu rn e d to w h e re th e y h a d sp o k e n a n d b re a th les sly
s t a t e d t h a th e h a d “

j u s tf i n i s he d s t a b b i n g a g u yu p ” e i g h tt o t e n t i me s , l i k e l yk i l l i n g h i m. A cos t a gave M ar t i nez a bl ood- s t ai ned kni fe a nd t ol d hert o cl ean i t . N otw ant i ng anythi ng to d o w ith th e w e a p o n , M a rtin e z g a v e it t o a f r ie n d , P a trick W ilso n , w h o w o u ld g iv e it t o i nves t i gat i ng pol i ce of

fi cer s t he fol l ow i ng day , N ovember2. O n th e m o r n in g o f N o v e m b e r 3 , p o lice a rre ste d A c o sta f o r C e tter’ s m u rd e r. A t a sta tio n h o u se lin e u p c o n d u c ted th e sa m e d a y, H ig g s, P e rry , an d M a rtin e z e a c h p o sitiv e ly id e n tifie d A c o sta a s th e p e rso n th e y h a d im p lica ted in th e m u rd e r. L a ter th a t d a y , A c o sta h im se lf a d m itt e d to a p o lice d e tec tiv e th a t h e h a d s ta b b e d C e tter b u t ex p lain e d th a t h is
a c tio n s w e re ta k e n in s e lf -d e f e n s e .5

B
. St at e C our tPr ocee di ngs 1. T he Suppr es s i on H ear i ng A cos t a w as char ged by a K i ngs C ount y gr and j uryw i t h tw o count s of M ur deri n t he S econ d D egree, see N
. Y
. P enal La w § 1 25
. 25 [1], [3] ; o n e cou nt of R ob beryi n the Fir st D e g re e , se e id . § 1 6 0 .1 5 [ 3 ]; a n d o n e c o u n t o f C rim in a l P o ss e ss io n o f a W e a p o n in th e F o u rth D e g re e , se e id . § 2 6 5 .0 1 [ 2 ]. P rio r to trial, A c o sta m o v e d , inte r a lia, to s u p p r e s s h is p o sta rre st a d m iss io n a lleg in g th a t it w a s the f ru it o f a n u n law f

u l a rre st a n d h a d b e e n o b tain e d in
v io latio n o f

h is rig h t to c o u n se l. A c o sta d id n o t p re se n t a n ye v id e n c e o r su b m it an a f f id a v it i n s uppor tof hi s m ot i on; nordi d he t es t i fyatthe hea r i ng hel d t o addr es s the mot i on. A tt hathear i ng, Pol i ce D et ect i ves N ancyG aff ney and R amon A gui l art es t i fi ed t o how th e yc a m e to id e n tifyA c o sta a s C e tter’ s lik e lyk ill e r a n d to p lac e A c o sta u n d e r a rre st. D e tec tiv e A g u ilar f

u rth e r sta ted th a t, af

ter a rre st, A c o sta w a s a d v ise d o f h is M ira n d a rig h ts
w h e n h e w a s b ro u g h t to th e p o lic e p re c in c t at a p p ro x im a te ly 5 :3 0 p .m . B e c a u se A c o sta i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o couns el , pol i c e q u e s t i o n i ng w as l i m i t ed t o s ecur i ng pedi gr ee i nform at i on. See gene r al l yPenns y lvan ia v. M uni z, 496 U
. S. 582, 601 ( 1990) ( r ecogni zi ng “r out i ne booki ng ques t i on exce pt i on w hi ch exe m pt s fr om M i r anda’ s cover age ques t i ons t o s ecur e the bi ogr aphi cal dat a nece s s ary t o compl et e booki ng or pr etr i al s ervi ces ” ( i nt ernal qu o tat i on
m ark s o m itted)). D et ect i ve A gui l ar t es t i fi ed thatbetw een 6: 00 p. m . and 7: 00 p. m . t he pol i ce pl ace d A cos t a i n a l i neup thatw as vi ew ed s epar at el ybyPer r y , H i ggs , and M art i nez, eac h of6

w hom pos i t i vel yi dent i fi ed A cos t a. A ppr oxi m at el yt w o hour s l at er , w hen the ident i fy i ng w i t nes s es w er e l eavi ng t he st at i on ho use, D et ect i ve A gu i l ar t oo k A cost a t o a seco nd -fl oo r bathroom t o en sure agai nst any co n tact betw een the def endantand the w i t nes s es . A tthe hea r i ng, D et ect i ve A gui l ar t e s t i f i e d t h a th e d i d n o tr e c a l l t e l l i n g Ac o s t a t h a th e h a d b e e n i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e l i n e u p . At
s om e poi nt w hi l e A cos t a w as i n t he bathr oom , he as ked D et ect i ve A gui l ari f he c oul d s peak
w ith a p ro se c u to r. A f

ter c o n su lti n g w ith a n a ss ista n t d istric t atto rn e y , D e tec tiv e A g u ilar to ld A cos t a thatt he pr os ecut orcoul d nots peak t o hi m i n t he abs ence of def ens e couns el
. W i thout anypr om pt i ng, A cos t a then s t at ed thathe had e nt er ed the aba ndo n ed fa ct orybui l di ng on N ovember1 i nt endi ng t o comm i tr obbery and thathe had s t abbed Cet t er , butexpl ai ned that h e h a d a c te d in s e lf

-d e f e n s e a f te r C e tte r h a d a tta c k e d h im w ith a b a s e b a ll b a t. A cos t a further t ol d A gui l art hathe had be en s m oki ng cr ack c ocai ne on N ovember1 an d that h e thought C e tter a n d P e rryh a d b e e n sm o k in g c ra c k a s w e ll. J us t i ce J ames G
. St arkeyfound the pr os ec u ti o n w i t nes s es cr edi bl e and de ni ed A cos t a’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s hi s confe s s i on. T he j udge s peci fi cal l yfound thatt he pol i ce ha d t aken A cos t a t o the bathr oom t o avoi d cont actw i t h the i dent i fy i ng w i tne s s es and that A co sta’s ad m issi o n w as m ad e “ w ith o u t any interrog ati o n o r i n v it ati o n to sp ea k o n the p art
o f D e tec tiv e A g u ilar.” Ju stic e S tar k e y f u rth e r f o u n d th a t A c o sta h a d “ m e a n t [ th e sta tem e n t] to b e e x c u lp a to ry ,” a s e v id e n c e d b yA c o sta ’s e x p lan a tio n th a t h is a c tio n s w e re tak e n so lely7

i n s el f- defe ns e.

2. T r i al and C onvi ct i on A cos t a w as t r i ed i n A pr i l 1993 befor e J us t i ce J er om e M
. K ayand a j ury . V ar i ous ci vi l i an w i t nes s es , i ncl udi ng H i ggs, P erry , and M art i nez, t es t i fi ed t o thei rknow l edge of
ev en ts r elati n g to C ett er’s m u rde r. G o v ern m en t w itn esse s test ifi ed to the ca u se o f C ett er’s d e a th , the re c o v e ryo f

th e k n if e th a t k ill e d h im , the lin e u p id e n tific a tio n , a n d o th e r a sp e c ts of the i nves t i gat i on. O f par t i cul ar r el evanc e t o t hi s appea l , D et ect i ve A gui l ar t es t i fi ed – for t he fi r s t t i m e – on cr os s - exami nat i on t hat at s om e uns peci fi ed t i m e pr i or t o t he b athr oom
c o n f e ss io n , h e h a d in f

o rm e d A c o sta th a t h e h a d b e e n id e n tifie d in th e lin e u p : Q : W hen w as t he l i neup compl et ed? A : C om pl et ed about6: 26. Q : A ft ert he l ineup w as compl et ed, di d y ou t hen have a conver s at i on w i t h M r . A cos t a aboutw hathad t aken pl ace ? A : Y e s , th a t is c o rr e c t. [ . . . ] Q : S o , h o w lo n g a f te r th e lin e u p w a s th is s ta te m e n t [ i .e ., A co sta’s co n fe ssion ]? A : W hat , aboutt w o hour s aft erthe l i neup. Q : So, dur i ng t hos e tw o hour s , y ou had no conver s at i on wh a t s o e v e rwi th h i m? A : N o. O t herthan s om e pedi gr ee que s t i ons , l i ke I8 m enti on ed, con cerni ng date of birt h, height , and add res s, if a n y . H e w a s h u n g rya n d w a n ted so m e th in g to e a t. Q : D et ect i ve, di dn’ t y ou t el l M r . A cos t a t hat he ha d b een pi cked outi n t hatl i neup? A : Y es. Q : T haty ou now had w i t nes s es thatw er e i dent i fy i ng hi m as t he perpetr at orof thi s cr i m e? A : I i ndi cat ed t o t he def endantthathe w as pi cked outi n the l i neup. Q : A t t hat poi nt , di d y ou not as k hi m agai n w hether he now w ish e d to e x p lain h is a c tio n s a n d w h a t h e d id th a t n ig h t? A : O h y es , he did w antt o t al k. H e w ant ed t o t al k w i t h t he D i s t r i c tA t t o r n e y. Q : H e di d w antt o t al k? A : H e di d. Q : So y ourt es t i m ony i s t hatnow he cha nged hi s m i nd aft er y ou t ol d hi m t hathe had be en pi cked outof the l i neup a n d w a n t e d t o t a l k t o th e D i s t r i c tA t t o r n e y? A : W el l , he cha nged hi s m i nd i n t he fi r s tcas e. H e s ai d he w a n ted a law y e r a n d w a n ted to [ m a k e ] a p h o n e c a ll. A ft er t he l i neup w as conduct ed and he w as m oved fr om t he ce l l r oom and i nt o t he bat hr oom , he i ndi cat ed t hathe wa n t e d t o t a l k t o th e Br o o k l yn D. A. Q : A nd how di d he i ndi cat e t hat t o y ou, j us t out of t he cl ear bl ue s kys ai d t o y ou, “D et ect i ve, I w antt o now t al k t o t he D. A. ?” A : Y es, I bel i eve so. Y es.9

T r i al T r . 265- 67. D ef

ens e couns el di d notar gue t o t he tr i al cour tthatA gui l ar ’ s t es t i m ony aboutt he di s cl os ur e t o A cos t a of t he l i neup i dent i fi cat i on w arr ant ed r econs i der at i on of the
s uppr es s i on m ot i on. H e di d not m ove t o s t r i ke A cos t a’ s confe s s i on, aboutw hi ch the j ur yhad
a lr e a d yh e a rd . H e d id n o t m o v e f o r a m is tr ia l. T he j ur yconvi ct ed A co sta o f m ur deri n t he s econd de gr ee on a t heoryof fe l ony
m u rd e r. S e e N .Y
. P e n a l L a w § 1 2 5 .2 5 [ 3 ]. O n Ju n e 1 5 , 1 9 9 3 , the c o u rt se n ten c e d A c o sta to
a n in d e te rm in a te p ri s o n te rm o f tw e n ty-f o u r ye a rs to lif

e . 3. A ppel l at e Pr ocee di ngs W i t h t he as s i s t ance of new couns el on di r ectappea l , A cos t a chal l enged hi s convi ct i on
o n m yria d g ro u n d s, a rg u in g th a t (1 ) th e ju rysh o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n a llo w e d to h e a r h is b a th ro o m c o n f

e ss io n , (2 ) th e lin e u p id e n tific a tio n s w e re se c u re d in v io latio n o f h is rig h t to
couns el , ( 3) t he l i neup pr ocedur e w as i m perm i s s i bl ys ugges t i ve, ( 4) excul pat o ryma t e r i a l w as
w i t hh el d from th e d efen se, (5) t he tr i al cou rti m perm i ssi blyres t ri ct ed h i s r i gh tof crossexami nat i on, ( 6) t he pr os ecut or ’ s s um m at i on depr i ved hi m of a f ai rt r i al , ( 7) t he courtgave an i m pr oper“no i nfer ence ” cha r ge, ( 8) t r i al couns el w as cons t i tut i onal l yi neff ect i ve, and ( 9) th e tr ia l e v id e n c e w a s le g a lly in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt c o n v ic tio n . O n F eb rua ry20, 1996, the A pp ell ate D ivisi o n , S ec o n d D ep artm en t, af firm ed A co sta’s
c o n v ictio n . T h e ru lin g sta tes in f u ll: A p p e a l b yth e d e f

e n d a n t f ro m a ju d g m e n t o f

th e S u p re m e C o u rt, K in g s C o u n ty(K a y , J.), ren d e re d Ju n e 1 5 , 1 9 9 3 , co n v ictin g h im of m ur deri n the sec ond degr ee, upon a j uryver di ct , and10 im p o sin g se n ten c e . T h e a p p e a l b rin g s u p f o r re v iew th e d e n ial, af ter a h ea ri n g (S tarke y , J. ), o f tho se b ran ch es o f the d ef en d an t’ s om ni bus m oti o n w h i ch w er e t o s uppr es s a s t at ementm ade by h i m t o t h e p o l i c e a n d i d e n t i f i c a t i o n t e s t i m o n y. O r der ed thatt he j udgm enti s aff i r m ed. T he hea r i ng cour tpr oper l ydeni ed s uppr es s i on of the d e f e n d a n t’s o ra l sta tem e n t sin c e th a t sta tem e n t w a s v o lu n tar ily an d sp o n tane o u slym ad e (se e, P eo p le v . R ivers, 56 N
. Y
. 2 d 4 7 6 ). A ddi t i onal l y , t her e i s no m er i tt o t he defe ndant ’ s cont ent i on that he w as i m pr oper l y deni ed couns el atthe pr e- acc us at oryl i neup ( s ee, Peopl e v. L aC l er e, 76 N
. Y
. 2d 670; Peopl e v. H ernandez , 70 N
. Y
. 2d 833; Peopl e v. H aw ki ns , 55 N
. Y
. 2d 474, cert . deni ed 4 5 9 U .S . 8 4 6 ). V i ew i ng t he evi d en ce i n the l i ghtm os tfavor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on ( s ee, Peopl e v. C ont es , 60 N
. Y
. 2d 620) , w e fi nd t hat i tw as l egal l ys uffi ci ent t o es t abl i s h t he def endant ’ s gui l tbey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. M or eover , upon t he exe r ci s e of ourfac tual r evi ew pow er , w e ar e s at i s fi ed t hat t he ver di ct of gui l tw as not a g a in s t th e w e ig h t o f

th e e v id e n c e (s e e , C P L 4 7 0 .1 5 [ 5 ])
. T h e d e f e n d a n t’ s re m a in in g c o n te n tio n s la c k m e ri t. P e o p le v . A c o s ta , 2 2 4 A
. D .2 d 6 2 9 , 6 2 9 -3 0 , 6 3 9 N .Y .S .2 d 7 0 9 , 7 0 9 (2 d D e p ’t 1 9 9 6 ). T he N ew Y or k C our tof A ppeal s deni ed l eave t o appea l
. See Peopl e v. A cos t a, 88 N
. Y
. 2d 844, 6 4 4 N .Y .S .2 d 6 9 0 (1 9 9 6 ). C
. Feder al H abea s Pr ocee di ngs 1. T he I ni t i al D eni al and R emand A c o sta p ro c e e d e d to c h a llen g e h is c o n v ictio n in f e d e ra l co u rt b yp e tit io n in g f o r a w rit of habe as corpus . See 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254. A ft erpr el i m i naryl i t i gat i on as t o the t i m el i nes s of11

A cos t a’ s pet i t i on w as r es ol ved i n hi s favor , s ee A cos t a v. A r tuz, 213 F. 3d 625 ( 2d C i r . 2000) ( unpubl ishe d s um m aryor der ) , t he di s t r i ctcour tr efe r r ed the mat t ert o M agi s t r at e J udge R oanne L. M ann, w ho, on Sept ember7, 2001, i s s ued a de t ai l ed r epor tr ecomm endi ng di s m i s s al
. T he di s t r i ctcour tadopt ed the r ecomm endat i on on J anuary 22, 2002, deny i ng t he p e t i t i o n i n i t s e n t i r e t y, a s w e l l a s a c e r t i f i c a t e o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y. A cos t a s ubs equent l ym oved thi s cour tfora ce r t i fi cat e of a ppeal abil i t y , w hi ch w as gr ant ed on Sept ember25, 2002, for“the l i m i t ed purpos e of r emandi ng t he cas e t o t he di s tr i ct
co u rtto co n side r w h ethe r ap p ell an t’ s co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts w ere v iolated w h en the tri al co u rt admi t t ed hi s inc r i m i nat i ng s t at ementt o D et ect i ve A gui l [ar ] , w hi ch had be en made aft er appel l ant had i nvoked hi s M i r anda r i ghtt o t he pr es ence of couns el
. ” A cos t a v. A r tuz, N o. 0 2 -22 6 5 -pr (2 d C ir
. S ep t. 2 5 , 2 0 0 2 ). N o ti n g the d iscrep an cyb etw ee n D etec ti v e A g u il ar’s t es t i m onyat t he suppr es s i on hear i ng and hi s tr i al t es t i m onyr egar di ng di s cl os ur e of the l i neup i dent i fi cat i on t o A cos t a, this c o u r tobs erved that , “[b] eca us e the di s t r i ctcour tdi d not
c o n sid e r w h e th e r, in lig h t o f A g u il[a r]’s tes tim o n ya t trial, ap p e llan t’s c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts
w ere v iolated byt he admi s s i on of the s t at ement , w e r emand so thatt he di s t r i ctcour tm ay
m ake the det erm i nat i on. ” I d.

2. T he D eni al on R emand and t he I ns t antA ppeal O n r emand, t he di s t r i ctcour ti s s ued a publ i s hed opi ni on t hat car eful l y addr es s ed the i s s ues i dent i fi ed by t hi s cour t and concl uded t hat A cos t a’ s chal l enge t o t he admi s s i bi l i tyof hi s confe s s i on, t o t he ext enti tw as bas ed on D et ect i ve A g u il ar’ s tr i al t es t i m ony , w as ( 1)12

proced ural l y barr ed becau se A cost a fai l ed adeq uatel y t o exh aust his cl ai m i n the st at e cou rt s, and ( 2) w i t houtm er i t . See A cos t a v. A r tuz, 375 F. Supp. 2d 173. A cos t a aga i n m oved t hi s cour t for a cert i fi cat e of appea l abi l i t y , w hi ch w as gr ant ed on t w o i s s ues , “w hether : ( 1) pet i t i oner‘ fai r l ypr es ent ed’ t o t he s t at e court s hi s cl ai m thatan i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ementw as admi t t ed att r i al i n vi ol at i on of pet i t i oner ’ s r i ght s underM i r anda
v. A r i zona, 384 U
. S. 436 ( 1966) , and R hode Isl an d v. I nni s , 446 U
. S. 291 ( 1980) ; and ( 2)
w hetherpet i t i oner ’ s M i r anda/ I nni s cl ai m w arr ant s habea s r el i ef. ” A cos t a v. A r tuz, N o. 05- 4 1 9 6 -p r ( 2 d C ir . S e p t. 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 ). I t is to th e s e q u e s tio n s th a t w e n o w tu rn . I I . D i s cus s i on A
. St andar d of R evi ew W e r evi ew t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s deni al of A cos t a’ s pet i t i on for a w r i t of habea s corpus de novo. See, e. g. , C l ark v. Per ez, 510 F. 3d 382, 389 ( 2d C i r . 2008)
. O urde novo r evi ew i s , how ever , i nform ed bycert ai n l i m i t i ng pr i nci pl es . N ot abl y , w e ca nnotr evi ew chal l enges t o s t at e cour t convi ct i ons t hat have be en cl ear l yr ej ect ed byt he s t at e court s on i ndepende nt
an d ad eq u ate state law g rou n d s. S ee C o lem an v . T h o m p so n , 5 0 1 U
. S
. 7 2 2 , 7 2 9 -30 (19 9 1 ); R i char ds on v. G r eene , 497 F. 3d 212, 217 ( 2d C i r . 2007)
. N or w i l l w e cons i dercl ai m s t hat h av e n o t bee n ex h au sted b yfa ir p rese n tat ion to the stat e c o u rt s, see 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (b)(1 ); B al dw i n v. R ees e, 541 U
. S. 27, 2 9 (20 0 4) ( ci t i ng cas es ) , unl es s the pet i t i oner“ca n demonstr at e ca us e fort he def aul tand ac tual pr ej udi ce as a r es ul t of t he al l eged vi ol at i on of fede r al law , ordemonstr at e thatfai l ur e t o cons i derthe cl ai m s w i l l r es ul ti n a funda m ent al13

m is c a rr ia g e o f

ju s tic e ,” C o le m a n v . T h o m p s o n , 5 0 1 U .S . a t 7 5 0
. E ven w her e n o such pr ocedur al obs t acl es appl y , ourde novo r evi ew i s l i m i t ed by stan d ard s o f d ef

ere n ce m an d ated b y 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (d). U n d er tha t st atute, a f ed era l cou rt
m ayvaca t e a s t at e convi ct i on onl yupon concl udi ng thatt he chal l enged s t at e courtdeci s i on
w as ei t her( 1) “contr aryt o, ori nvol ved an unr eas onabl e appl i cat i on of, cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Feder al l aw , as det erm i ned by t he Supr eme Court of the U ni t ed St at es ”; or( 2) “bas ed on an
u n rea so n ab le de term ination o f th e fa cts in l igh t o f th e e v iden ce p rese n ted in the S tat e c o u rt pr ocee di ng. ” I d. “W her e, as her e, i ti s the s t at e court ’ s appl i cat i on of governi ng fede r al l aw th a t is c h a llen g e d , th e d e c isio n m u st b e sh o w n to b e n o t o n lye rro n e o u s, b u t o b jec tiv e ly
unr eas onabl e, ” W addi ngt on v. Sar aus ad, 129 S. C t . 823, 8 3 1 ( 2009) ( i nt ernal quot at i on
m arks om i t t ed) , a “s ubs t ant i al l yhi gherthr es hol d, ” S chr i r o v. L andr i gan, 550 U
. S. 465, 473 (20 0 7 ). W e m u st assess the s tat e c o u rt ’s de cisi o n “in ligh t of the re co rd th e c o u rth ad b ef o re it , ” H o ll an d v . Jac k so n , 5 4 2 U
. S
. 6 4 9 , 6 5 2 (20 0 4 ) (cit in g c a s e s ), an d itis th e p eti ti o n er’s bur den t o demonstr at e that t he s t at e court appl i ed the r el evantcl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw t o that
r ecor d i n an obj ect i vel yunr eas onabl e manner , s ee W oodfor d v
. V is ci ot t i , 537 U
. S. 19, 25 (2 0 0 2 ); S o rt o v . H e rb e rt , 4 9 7 F .3 d 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 -6 7 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). A ppl y i ng t hes e pr i nci pl es t o thi s cas e, w e co n clud e, a s t he di s t r i ctcourtdi d, that A cos t a i s notent i t l ed t o habea s r el i ef.14

B
. Pr ocedur al C oncerns 1. I ndepende ntSt at e G r ound A t th e o u tse t, w e d isc u ss tw o p ro c e d u ra l issu e s a d d re ss e d b yth e d istric t co u rt. F irst,
w e n o t e o u r a g r e e me n t wi t h t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t t h e App e l l a t e Di v i s i on, Second D epart m ent , now her e cl ear l y and expr es s l yi ndi cat ed thati tr ej ect ed A cos t a’ s cons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o t he adm is s i on of hi s confe s s i on on anyi ndepende nts t at e l aw gr ound. See A costa v . A r tuz, 375 F. Supp. 2d at178; Peopl e v. A cos t a, 224 A
. D
. 2d at629- 30, 639 N
. Y
. S. 2d at709. T hus , t he “conce rns of com i t y and feder al i s m ” t hat bar fede r al r evi ew of cl ai m s deni ed on s uch gr ounds ar e not i m pl i cat ed her e. C ol eman v. T hom ps on, 501 U
. S. at 730. 2. E xhaus t i on Second, as t he di s t r i ctcour tobs erved, a fe der al cour t m us tcons i derw hethera habe as pet i t i oneradequa t el yexhaus t ed s t at e r emedi es by fai r l ypr es ent i ng both t he fa ctual and l egal p rem ises fo r his fe d era l cl aim to the ap p rop ri ate state co u rt s. S ee 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4 (b)(1 ); B al dw i n v. R ees e, 541 U
. S. at30- 34; D ay e v. A t t ’ yG en. of N
. Y
. , 696 F. 2d 186, 191- 92 ( 2d C i r . 1982) ( en banc )
. “[T] h e q u est i on of w hethera fe der al cons t i tut i onal ques t i on w as
su f f icie n tlya ss e rte d in sta te c o u rts to f o rm th e b a sis o f a f

e d e ra l h a b e a s p e tit io n is u lti m a tely a ques t i on of fe der al l aw w hi ch the feder al cour t s m us tr es ol ve fort hemsel ves . ” D i Si m one
v . P h il li p s, 4 6 1 F
. 3 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 9 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ).W e not e that , al t hough D et ect i ve A gui l ar di d nott es t i fyunt i l t r i al t hathe di s cl os ed 2 the lineu p iden ti fica ti o n s to the d ef en d an t, A co sta h im s el f p resu m ab lyk n ew o f th e d iscl o su re a n d w a s in a p o sitio n to f ile an a f f id a v it i n su p p o rt o f

h is s u p p re ss io n m o tio n a ss e rtin g b o th th e f a c t o f th e d is c lo s u re a n d its c o e rc iv e e f f e c t o n th e s ta te m e n t h e s o u g h t to s u p p re s s . 15 T o t he ext ent A cos t a r el i es on D et ect i ve A gui l ar ’ s di s cl os ur e of t h e li n eup i dent i fi cat i ons as a fa ctual pr emi s e forhi s cl ai m thathi s confe s s i on w as coer ced i n vi ol at i on of cons t i tut i onal r i ght s and, t her efor e, i nadmi s s i bl e, i ti s undi s put ed thatA cos t a di d not p re se n t th is a rg u m e n t to Ju stic e S tar k e ya t th e tim e a h e a rin g w a s c o n d u c ted o n h is
s uppr es s i on m ot i on. N ordi d A cos t a ask Jus t i ce K ay t o r econs i dert he i s s ue of s uppr es s i on
a t trial w h e n D e tec tiv e A g u ilar f irst te stif

ied to th e id e n tific a tio n d is c lo su re . A c o sta 2
n e v e rth e les s in sis ts th a t h e a d e q u a telye x h a u ste d sta te r e m e d ies b e c a u se , o n d ire c t ap p e a l, he “di d notas k t he appel l at e cour t t o r evi ew t he pr opr i ety of t he hear i ng cour tdeci s i on, but
r atherar gued that , upon t he fa ct s el i ci t ed a t tr i al , appel l ant ’ s s t at ements houl d have be en
s uppr es s ed byt he tr i al cour t . ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 21- 22 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal )
. W e ar e not p e rs u a d e d
. a. W hetherU npr ot es t ed C l ai m s A r e A dequat el y E xhaus t ed by Pr es ent at i on on D i r ectA ppeal W hethera s t at e pr i s oner adequa t el yexhaus t s unpr ot es t ed cl ai m s bypr es ent i ng t hem on di r ectappea l admi t s no eas yans w er . W hi l e s om e comm ent at or s have s ugges t ed that
r ai s i ng a cl ai m on d i r ectappea l can s at i s fya fe der al habea s pet i t i oner ’ s exhaus t i on obl i gat i on, s ee 2 R AN DY H ER TZ & J AMES S. L I EB MAN , F E D E RA L H ABEAS C ORPUS P RACTI CE16

AN D P ROCEDURE § 2 3 .3 b , a t 1 0 6 8 & n .1 9 (5 th e d . 2 0 0 5 ), a q u e stio n a rise s a s to w h e th e r th is concl us i on i s pr oper l yappl i ed onl yt o cas es i n w hi ch t he appel l at e courtactual l yaddr es s es t h e u n p r ot es t ed cl ai m . T he Supr eme C our thas , aft eral l , rul ed thatw her e a c ons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o a s t at e courtconvi ct i on has been pr es ent ed t o the s t at e court s “fort he fi r s tand
o n lyti m e in a p roc ed u ral co n text in w h ich i ts m erit s w il l no t be c o n side red u n less there are
s p e c ia l a n d i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n s th e re f o r[ , r] a is in g th e c la im in s u c h a f a s h io n d o e s n o t . . .
cons t i tut e fa i rpr es ent at i on. ” C as t i l l e v. Peopl es , 489 U
. S. 346, 351 (19 89) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i t t ed) ; s ee al s o B el l v. C one, 543 U
. S. 447, 451 n. 3 ( 2005) (“ [ A ]s a g e n e ra l m a tter, th e b u rd e n is on th e p e tit io n e r t o ra ise h is fe d e ra l c laim in th e sta te
cour t s at a t i m e w hen s t at e pr ocedur al l aw perm i t s i t s cons i der at i on on t he mer i t s , even i f the
s t at e courtcoul d have i dent i fi ed and a ddr es s ed the fe der al ques t i on w i t houti t s havi ng been
ra is e d .” ). A cos t a ar gues t hatC as t i l l e v. Peopl es appl i es onl yt o cl ai m s r ai s ed i n appl i cat i ons for di s cr et i onaryr evi ew . See 489 U
. S. at351 ( “The C our t of A ppeal s bel ow hel d .
. . thatt he
su b m iss io n o f

a n e w c laim to a S tate ’s h ig h e st c o u rt o n d isc re tio n a ryre v iew c o n stitu tes a f a ir pr es ent at i on. W e di s agr ee . ”); S t . H el en v. Senkow s ki , 374 F. 3d 181, 183 ( 2d C i r . 2004) ( “[R]a i s i ng a fe der al cl ai m fort he fi r s tt i m e i n an appl i cat i on fordi s cr et i onaryr evi ew t o a
s t at e’ s hi ghes tcour ti s i ns uffi ci entforexhaus t i on purpos es . ” ( ci t i ng C as t i l l e v. Peopl es , 489 U
. S. at351) )
. H e s ubm i t s t hat hi s appea l t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on w as , bycontr as t , “as of
r i ght
. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at 24 ( emphasi s om i t t ed)
. E ven i f w e w er e t o agr ee w i t h A cos t a that17

C as t i l l e’ s hol di ng appl i es onl yt o di s cr et i onaryappea l s – a poi nt w e need nother e dec i de – th e e x h a u s tio n is s u e is m o re c o m p le x th a n A c o s ta m ig h t w is h
. T o b e su re , a c o n v icte d N e w Y o rk d e f e n d a n t h a s a rig h t o f

a p p e a l to th e A p p e llate D ivisi o n o f th e N ew Y o rk S u p rem e C o u rt . S ee N
. Y
. C ri m . P roc . L aw § 4 5 0
. 1 0
. M o reo v er, th e ju risd ictio n o f

N e w Y o r k ’ s in ter m e d iate a p p e llate c o u rts is b ro a d a n d e x ten d s e v e n to
err or s notpr ot es t ed att r i al
. See i d. § 470. 15( 1) ; s ee al s o Peopl e v. C ona, 49 N
. Y
. 2d 26, 33, 4 2 4 N .Y .S .2 d 1 4 6 , 1 4 9 (1 9 7 9 ). T h e law is c lea r, h o w e v e r, th a t a s tate p riso n e r h a s n o “ rig h t” t o A ppel l at e D i vi s i on r evi ew of unprot es t ed er r or s ; t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on m ayr evi ew s uch
err or s “[a ] s a m att erof di s cr et i on i n the i nt er es tof j us t i ce. ” N
. Y
. C r i m . Pr oc. L aw § 470. 15( 3) ( c) , ( 6) ( a)
. I ti s t hi s l anguage thatappea r s t o br i ng the C as t i l l e rul e t o bearand
s i gnal s caut i on i n concl udi ng t hatunpr ot es t ed cl ai m s n o ta d d r e s s e db ythe A ppel l at e D i vi s i on
a re e x h a u s te d
. In th is c a se , the A p p e llate D iv isio n g a v e n o in d ica tio n th a t it ch o se to e x e rc ise its di s cr et i on t o r evi ew pos s i bl e const i tut i onal err or i n t he tr i al j udge’ s fai l ur e, unpr ot es t ed by A c o s t a , t o d e c l a r e h i s c o n f e s s i o n i n a d m i s s i b l e i n l i g h t o f D e t e c t i v e A g u i l a r ’ s t r i a l t e s t i m o n y. T he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on’ s s i l ence on thi s poi nti s s i gni fi cantbeca us e, as the di s t r i ctco u rt
n o ted , “[ i]t is w e ll se ttl e d ” in N e w Y o rk “ th a t tria l tes tim o n ym a yn o t b e c o n sid e re d in
e v a lu a tin g a su p p re ss io n ru lin g o n a p p e a l,” a n d th a t w h e re “ th e d e f e n d a n t f a ils to m o v e to
r eopen a s uppr es s i on hear i ng, he ors he maynotr el yupon t he tr i al t es t i m onyt o chal l enge the
su p p ression ruli n g . ” P eo p le v. G o ld, 24 9 A
. D
. 2 d 4 1 4 , 4 1 5 , 6 7 0 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d 7 8 9 , 7 8 9 (2d D ep ’t18

1998) ; s ee a l s o Peopl e v. G onzal ez, 55 N
. Y
. 2d 720, 722, 447 N
. Y
. S
. 2 d 1 4 5 , 146 ( 1981) ( not i ng t hat “pr opr i ety of t he deni al [of suppr es s i on m ot i on] m us t be j udged on the evi dence befor e the s uppr es s i on cour t ”) ; Peopl e v. Sout h, 47 A
. D
. 3d 734, 735, 849 N
. Y
. S. 2d 603, 605 (2 d D e p ’t 2 0 0 8 ) (“ In so f a r a s [ d e f

e n d a n t] re lies u p o n [ trial] te stim o n yin a rg u in g th a t h is
s t at ement s w er e notvol unt ar i l ym ade [ and thus s houl d have be en s uppr es s ed] , hi s cont ent i on i s notpr oper l ybefor e thi s C our t . ”) ; Peopl e v . D o u gl as , 8 A
. D
. 3d 980, 981, 778 N
. Y
. S. 2d 6 2 2 , 6 2 3 (4 th D e p ’t 2 0 0 4 ) (“ T o th e e x ten t th a t d e f e n d a n t re lies u p o n tr ia l te s ti m o n yin chal l engi ng t he court ’ s det erm i nat i on, hi s cl ai m s ar e notpr oper l ybefor e us . ”) ; Peopl e v. W i l l i am s, 30 5 A
. D
. 2d 80 4, 80 7-08, 759 N
. Y
. S
. 2d 58 0, 58 4 (3 d D e p ’t 20 03 ) ( “[W ]e m ust di s countdefe n d an t’ s rel i ance on t he tr i al t es t i m onyof a w i t nes s t o the pat
- dow n as our
r evi ew i n t hi s r es pecti s l i m i t ed t o t he suppr es s i on hear i ng t es t i m ony . ”) ; Peopl e v. C ant een, 295 A
. D
. 2d 256, 256, 744 N
. Y
. S. 2d 380, 381 ( 1s t D ep’ t 2002) ( “Si nce defe ndan t never
r eques t ed that the cour tr eopen the s uppr es s i on hear i ng, hi s cl ai m thathi s tr i al t es t i m ony
e sta b lish e d th e in v o lu n tar in e ss o f h is s tate m e n ts is u n p re se rv e d , an d w e d e c lin e to re v iew it i n t he i nt er es t of j us t i ce. ” (c i t at i on om i t t ed) ) ; buts ee Peopl e v. M cC or m i ck, 39 A
. D
. 2d 590, 5 9 0 , 3 3 1 N
. Y
. S. 2d 840, 841 ( 2d D ep’ t1972) ( r ever s i ng deni al of s uppr es s i on m ot i on and
or der i ng new t r i al i n i nt er es t s of j us t i ce w her e off i cer ’ s t r i al t est im o n y w as “i n bas i c and fl agr antcontr adi ct i on” w i t h t hat pr es ent ed ats uppr es s i on hear i ng)
. I tw as i n t hes e l egal and fac tual ci r cumst ance s t hat t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded that“the evi dence of A gui l ar ’ s t r i al t es t i m onyw as pr es ent ed [t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s ion ] in a cont extw her e i tw oul d not19

o rd in a rilyh a v e b e e n c o n sid e re d ,” an d , th u s, u n d e r C a stille, a n y c laim o f e rro r b a se d o n th is
e v id e n c e sh o u ld n o t b e d e e m e d e x h a u ste d a b se n t so m e re c o rd in d ica tio n th a t th e a p p e llate
c o u rt a c tu a lly a d d re s s e d th e m e ri ts . A c o s ta v . A rt u z , 3 7 5 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 7 9 -8 0
. W h il e this rea so n ing is p ersu asiv e, w e iden ti fy a m o re f u n d am en tal flaw in A co sta’s
e x h a u stio n a rg u m e n t: th e re c o rd d o e s n o t d e m o n stra te a f a ir p r e se n tatio n to th e A p p e llate D iv isio n o f

th e sa m e c h a llen g e to th e a d m iss ib ili ty o f h is c o n f e ss io n th a t h e n o w p u rsu e s in hi s fede r al habea s pet i t i on.

b
. A c o sta F a iled T o A ler t th e A p p e llate D iv isio n th a t H is C hal l enge t o t he A dm i s s i bi l i t y of H i s C onfes s i on C har ged Err or byt he Tri al J udge W e have car eful l yr evi ew ed A cos t a’ s br i ef t o t he A ppel l a t e Di v i s i o n , and w e conc l ude t hati tdi d notfai r l yal er tt hatcour tthatthe err orbei n g all eg ed w as one bythe tr i al j udge, J us t i ce K ay ( befor e w hom A cos t a neverchal l enged the admi s s i bi l i t yof hi s confe s s i on) , as di s t i nctfr om anybyt he hea r i ng j udge, J us ti ce S t arkey( w ho deni ed A cos t a’ s pr e- tr i al
s u p p re s s io n m o tio n a f

te r a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g ). T he fi r s ts ent ence of A cos t a’ s br i ef t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on s t at es t hathe “moved at tri al t o su p p ress a stat em en t th at he m ad e w h il e un d er arrest. ” P eti ti o n er’s A p p . D iv. B r. at18 ( emphasi s adde d ). T hi s w oul d nothave a l ert ed the A ppel l at e D i vi s i on t o a cl ai m of
err orby J us t i ce K aybeca us e the onl ys uppr es s i on m ot i on m ade byA cos t a w as the one f i l ed pr i ort o t r i al and rul ed on byJ us t i ce St arkey
. T hatA cos t a w as , i n fac t , r efe r r i ng t o t hi s pr e-A H unt l eyhear i ng i s a pr e- t r i al pr ocee di ng t o det erm i ne the admi s s i bi l i t yof a 3 confe s s i on oradmi s s i on. See Peopl e v. H unt l ey , 15 N
. Y
. 2d 72, 255 N
. Y
. S. 2d 838 ( 1965) ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es ex r el
. W al kerv. H ender s on, 492 F. 2d 1311, 1314 n. 13 ( 2d C ir . 1 9 7 4 ). 20 t r i al m ot i on i n t he openi ng s ent ence of hi s s t at e appe l l at e br i ef i s convi nci ngl ydemonstr at ed byt he s econd s ent ence of the br i ef, w hi ch s t at es : “A H unt l eyhear ing w as h el d and the
m ot i on deni ed. ” I d. 3 M or eover , i n ar gui ng t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on thatcoer ci ve pol i ce c onductr equi r ed
s uppr es s i on of hi s confe s s i on, A cos t a r efe r r ed the s t at e appe l l at e courtt o “the gui del i nes of a ‘ H unt l eyH ear i ng. ’ ” I d. at20 ( i ndi cat i ng thatpr os ecut i on w as r equi r ed t o pr ove “thatthe defe ndant ’ s s t at ementw as m ade vol unt ar i l yand notas t he r es ul tof i m perm issi bl e pol i ce i nt err ogat i on”)
. N ow her e di d A cos t a i ndi cat e t hat he w as faul t i ng t he tr i al j udge forfai l i ng to a p p lyth e se g u id e lin e s to a su a sp o n te r e c o n sid e ra tio n o f A c o sta ’s s u p p re ss io n m o tio n in l i ghtof D et ect i ve A gui l ar ’ s t r i al t es t i m ony . N or di d he ar gue that , i n l i ghtof the di s cr epanc y b e tw e e n th e trial a n d h e a rin g re c o rd s – w h ich w a s c e rta in lyk n o w n to A c o sta , b u t n o t to Ju stic e K a y , w h o h a d n o t p re sid e d a t th e p re -tria l h e a rin g – th e trial ju d g e w a s le g a lly obl i gat ed s ua s pont e t o r econs i dert he admi s s i bi l i t yof A cos t a’ s confe s s i on. I ndeed, he ci t ed no l egal author i t yi ndi cat i ng s uch an obl i gat i on of s ua s pont e r evi ew , w hi ch mi ghthave
a le rt e d th e A p p e ll a t e D i v i s i o n t o th e n a tu re o f h is c la im . S e e D a y e v . A tt’ yG e n . o f N .Y ., 6 9 6 F .2 d a t 1 9 1 -9 4
. U n d e r th e se c irc u m sta n c e s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t A c o sta d id n o t f a irlya ler t th e sta teI ns ofar as t he s t at e’ s br i ef t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on ar gued that“def endantcannot 4 im p ea ch the h ea ri n g rec o rd w ith test im o n ysu b seq u en tl yad d u ce d at tri al, ” R esp o n d en t’ s 21 appel l at e courtt hathe w as s eeki ng r ever s al of hi s convi ct i on bas ed o n an unpr ot es t ed
c o n stitu tio n a l er ro r b y th e sta te tria l co u rt, w h ich w a s d istin c t f ro m a n ye rro r b yth e sta te h e a rin g c o u rt in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to su p p re ss . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s m a d e c lea r th a t a cl ai m i s not “fa i r l y pr es ent ed” t o a st at e appel l at e cour ti f di s coveryof thatcl ai m r equi r es t he
c o u r t t o “ r e a d b e y o n d a p e t i t i o n o ra b r i e f ( o ra s i mi l a rd o c u me n t ) ” a n d c o n d u c ti t s o wn
r evi ew of pr ocee di ngs bel ow . B al dw i n v. R ees e, 541 U
. S. at32; s ee a l s o i d. at31 ( hol di ng t hatcl ai m notfai r l ypr es ent ed w her e “an ap p ell ate j udge ca n di s covert hatcl ai m onl yby
re a d in g lo w e r c o u rt o p in io n s in th e c a se ” ). G iv e n th e c o n ten t o f A c o sta ’s s tate a p p e llate bri ef, t he A pp el l at e D i vis i on cou l d no t hav e determ i ned that A cost a w as, as he no w assert s, i dent i fy i ng erro rbyt he tr i al cour tunl es s i t( 1) car eful l yr evi ew ed the hea r i ng and tr i al tr an scri pt s ; ( 2) r ecogni zed thatt he t es t i m onyA cos t a i dent i fi ed on appe al as r equi r i ng
s uppr es s i on w as offe r ed onl yatt r i al and notatthe pr e- t r i al s uppr essio n hear i ng; and ( 3) i nferr ed ther efr om t hatA cos t a mustt her efor e be c har gi ng t he tr i al cour t w i t h err orforfai l i ng
s u a s p o n t e t o r e v i s i t th e s u p p r e s s i o n i s s u e i n l i g h t o f Det e c t i v e Agu i l a r ’ s t r i a l t e s t i mon y . To
re q u ire sta te a p p e llate c o u rts to e n g a g e in th is le v e l o f in v e stig a tio n a n d c o n

jec tu re to d isc o v e r f

e d e ra l cla im s th a t m a ya r ise in a late r h a b e a s p e tit io n w o u ld b e to “ u n ju stif iab ly
u n d e rc u t th e c o n sid e ra tio n s o f f e d e ra l-sta te c o m ityth a t th e e x h a u stio n re q u ire m e n t se e k s to p ro m o te.” Id . at 3 2
. W e d e c lin e to im p o se su c h a re q u ire m e n t. 4A p p . D iv. B r. at 32 , the a rgu m en t si m p lyd ef en d s the h ea ri n g co u rt ’s de n ial o f A co sta’s su p p re ss io n m o tio n . M o re o v e r, A c o sta p o in ts u s to n o re p ly b rie f c lar if y in g f o r th e A p p e llate D i vi s i on t hathe w as ar gui ng an err or by t he t r i al cour t s epar at e and di s t i nct fr om t hat of the h e a ri n g c o u rt . 22 B e c a u se A c o sta c a n n o t n o w p re se n t h is un e x h a u ste d c laim o f trial e rro r to th e sta te
cour t s , w e deem the cl ai m pr ocedur al l y barr ed. See W as hi ngt on v. J ames, 996 F. 2d 1442, 1 4 4 7 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 9 3 )
. Ac o s t a h a s n o t a t t e mp t e d t o ma k e t h e s h o wi n g n e c e s s a r yt o o v e r c o me
s uch a ba r , namel y , “ca us e fort he def aul tand actu al p rejudi ce a s a r es ul tof the al l eged vi ol at i on of fe der al l aw , ” ort hat“fa i l ur e t o cons i der[hi s ] cl ai m s w i l l r es ul ti n a funda m ent al
m i scarri age o f j ust i ce. ” C olem an v . T ho m pson , 50 1 U
. S
. at75 0. N or could he d o so b e c a u se , as w e e x p lain in th e n e x t se c tio n , A c o sta ’s c laim is la c k in g in m e rit in a n ye v e n t. See G i t t ens v. M eni fee , 428 F. 3d 382, 387 ( 2d C i r . 2005) ( not i ng that p eti t i oner“ca nnot
s how pr ej udi ce ora funda m ent al m i s carr i age of j us t i ce, as hi s pet i ti on i s pl ai nl yw i thout
m erit ”). C
. T he M er i t s of A cos t a’ s C hal l enge t o t he A dm i s s i on of H i s C onfes s i on E ven i f w e w er e t o as s um e tha t A co staadequa t el yexhaus t ed s t at e r emedi es on t he pr eci s e cha l l enge t o t he admi s s i on of hi s confe s s i on t hat he now r ai s es i n hi s habea s pet i t i on,
w e w oul d agr ee w i t h t he di s t r i ctcour tthatno r el i ef i s w arr ant ed bec aus e A cos t a has not d e m o n stra ted th a t t h e sta te c o u rt’s r e jec tio n o f

h is c laim o n th e m e rits w a s a n o b jec tiv e lyA s s um i ng t hatA cos t a fa i r l ypr es ent ed hi s cl ai m t o t he A ppel l at e D i vi s i on, w e furt her 5 as s um e thati tw as r ej ect ed on the mer i t s w hen thatcour thel d t hatA cos t a’ s “r emai ni ng cont ent i ons l ack mer i t . ” Peopl e v. A cos t a, 224 A
. D
. 2d at630, 639 N
. Y
. S. 2d at709. See Sel l an v. K uhl m an, 261 F. 3d 303, 311 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( “N othi ng i n t he phr as e ‘ adj udi cat ed on t he mer i t s ’ r equi r es t he s t at e courtt o have e xpl ai ned i t s r eas oni ng pr oces s . ” ( quot i ng 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254( d) ( 1) ) ) ; s ee a l s o D y e v. H ofbaue r , 546 U
. S. 1, 3 ( 2005) ( “Fai l ur e of a s t at e appe l l at e courtt o m ent i on a fe der al cl ai m does notm ean the cl ai m w as notpr es ent ed to it
. ”). 23 u n re a so n a b le a p p lica tio n o f c lea rlye sta b lish e d S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. 5 T he C ons t i tut i on famousl y stat es thatno “per s on . . . s hal l be compel l ed i n any
c r i mi na l c a s e t o be a w i t ne s s a ga i ns t hi mse l f. ” U
. S. C ONST . amend. V
. T hi s pr ot ect i on fr om compul s or ys el f- i ncr i m i nat i on ext ends t o t he st at es t hr ough t he F our t eenth A m endment
. See M all o yv. H ogan, 378 U
. S. 1, 6 ( 1964)
. I n M i r anda v. A r i zona, t he Supr eme C o u rt d e t e r mi n e d t h a tt h e “ i n - c u s t o d yi n t e r r o g a t i o n o f p e r s o n s s us p e c t e d o ra c c u s e d o f c r i me
c o n tain s in h e re n tlyc o m p e lli n g p re ss u re s w h ich w o rk to u n d e rm in e th e in d iv id u a l’s w ill to
r es i s tand t o compel hi m t o s peak w her e he w oul d not otherw i s e do s o fr eel y . ” 384 U
. S. at 4 6 7
. As a p r o p h y l a c t i c me a s u r e t o a d d r e s s t h i s c o n c e r n , t h e Co u r tf o r mu l a t e d t h e “ n o wfami l i arpr ocedur al s afe guar ds ” – t he M i r anda w arni ngs – deemed nece s s ary“t o s ecur e the pr i vi l ege a gai ns t s el f i ncr i m i nat i on. ” C ol or ado v. Spr i ng, 479 U
. S. 564, 572 ( 1987) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). C e rta in ru les a tten d th e se p ro c e d u re s. O f p a rticu lar re lev a n c e to A c o sta ’s p e tit io n is th e ru le th a t w h e n a n a rre ste d p e rso n “ ‘e x p re ss e [ s] h is d e sire to d e a l w ith t he pol i ce onl yt hr ough couns el , [he] i s not s ubj ect t o fur t her i nt err ogat i on by t he author i t i es unt i l couns el has been made ava i l abl e t o hi m , unl es s t he ac cus ed hi m s el f i n i t i at es fur ther24

c omm un i c a t i on , e xc ha ng e s , or c on ve r s a t i on s w i t h t he po l i c e . ’ ” A r i z on a v. M a ur o, 48 1 U. S. 52 0, 52 5- 26 ( 19 87 ) ( s e c on d al t e r a t i on i n o r i gi na l ) ( qu ot i ng Edw a r ds v. A r i z on a , 45 1 U. S. 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 -8 5 (1 9 8 1 ))
. I n R hode I s l and v. I nni s , t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned that“the t erm ‘ i nt err ogat i on’ underM i r anda r efe r s not onl y t o expr es s ques t i oni ng, but al s o t o anyw or ds oract i ons on t he par tof the pol i ce ( ot her t han t hos e nor m al l y at t endant t o arr es tand cus t ody ) t hatt he pol i ce
s houl d know ar e r eas onabl yl i kel yt o el i ci t an i ncr i m i nat i ng r es pons e. ” 446 U
. S. at301. T he C our texpl ai ned that“[t ] he l at t erpor t i on of thi s defi ni t i on focuse s p r i m ar i l yupon t he p erc ep ti o n s o f the su sp ec t, rathe r th an the inten t o f the p o li ce . ” Id
. N ev erthe less, the C o u rt decl i ned t o hol d t he pol i ce “ acc ount abl e forthe un fo rese eabl e r es ul t s of thei rw or ds or act i on s. ” Id. at 30 2. T hu s, po l i ce con du ct w ou l d n ot qual i fyas i nterrogat i on si m plybecau se i t “s t ru c k a r e s p o n s i v e c h o r d ” i n a d e f e n d a n t . I d
. a t 3 0 3
. Ra th e r , “ [ i ] t mus t a l s o be
es t abl i s hed thata s us pect ’ s i ncr i m i nat i ng r es pons e w as the pr oductof w or ds oract i ons on t he partof the pol i ce thatt heys houl d hav e know n w er e r eas onabl yl i kel yt o el i ci tan i ncr i m i nat i ng r es pons e. ” I d. T he part i es agr ee thatA cos t a w as underarr es t and i n pol i ce c us t odyon t he eve ni ng of N ovember 3, 1991. T hey fur t her agr ee t hat A cos t a had been gi ven M i r anda w arni ngs and h a d in v o k e d h is rig h t to c o u n se l b e f o re m a k in g th e c h a ll e n g e d c o n f e ss io n . T h e p o in t in di s put e i s w hetheri tw as obj ect i vel yunr eas onable fo rt he s t at e courtt o concl ude thatT h e d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed that v ariou s inc o n sist en cies in D etec ti v e A g u il ar’s 6 t es t i m onyr egar di ng t he di s cl os ur e of the l i neup i dent i fi cat i ons w er e att r i but abl e t o fl aw ed m emory , noti nt ent i onal fal s ehood. A cos t a v. A r tuz, 375 F. Supp. 2d at181- 82. T o the ext entA cos t a fa ul t s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fac tfi ndi ng on t hi s poi nt , w e obs erve onl ythat , for re a so n s d isc u ss e d m o re f u llyin th e tex t o f

th is o p in io n , n o f

e d e ra l f a c t f in d in g is nece s s aryt o concl ude thatt he s t at e court s w er e notcompel l ed bycl ear l yes t abl i s hed S u p re m e C o u rt p re c e d e n t to h o ld th a t th e D e tec tiv e A g u ilar “ sh o u ld h a v e k n o w n ” th a t h is act i ons “w er e r eas onabl yl i kel yt o el i ci tan i ncr i m i nat i ng r es pons e” f r om A cos t a. R hode Is la n d v . In n is , 4 4 6 U .S . a t 3 0 3
. 25 A c o sta ’s c o n f

e ss io n w a s a se lf

-in iti a ted c o m m u n ica tio n a n d n o t th e p ro d u c tof im perm iss ib le

“ in te rr o g a tio n ” a s th a t te rm is d e f in e d b yIn n is
. A s not ed above , ourr evi ew of thi s i s s ue mustbe undert aken “i n l i ghtof the r ecor d t he [s t at e] cour thad bef

or e i t . ” H ol l and v. J acks on, 542 U
. S. at 652. W e t her efor e not e atthe
o u tse t th a t, a s A c o sta ’s c o u n se l c o n c e d e d a t o ra l ar g u m e n t, th e re is s ig n if ica n t am b ig u ityin t he st at e courtr ecor d r egar di ng t he ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch D et ect i ve A gui l ardi s cl os ed the l i ne up i de nt i fi c a t i on s t o Acos t a . M os ti mpor t a nt , A c os t a ’ s tr i a l c ou ns e l fa i l e d t o e s t a bl i sh
w h en , in the appr oxi m at el ytw o -ho u r i n terva l betw ee n the lineu p iden ti fica ti o n s an d A co sta’s confe s s i on i n t he bat hr oom , D et ect i ve A gui l arr evea l ed the r es ul t s of the l i neup t o A cos t a. T he t es t i m onyel i ci t ed fr om D et ect i ve A gui l aron cr os s - exami nat i on i s equal l ycons i s t ent wi t h a f i n d i n g t h a tt h e d i s c l o s u r e t o o k p l a c e t wo h o u r s b e f o r e Ac o s t a ’ s c o n f

e s s i o n , two
m in u tes b e f

o r e , o r , in d e e d , at a n ytim e in -b e tw e e n . S e e su p ra a t [ 7- 8] (q u o tin g f u ll excha nge)
. M or eover , i ti s n o tappar entfr om the r ecor d w hetherA cos t a’ s s t at ementw as

6
m a d e in re sp o n se to D e tec tiv e A g u ilar’ s d isc lo su re o f th e lin e u p id e n tific a tio n s, a s A c o sta26

n e v e r m a d e su c h a n a ss e rtio n b e f o re th e h e a rin g o r tria l c o u rt; n o r did h e su b m it an a f f id a v it
o r t e s tif yo n th is p o in t. T hus , t he r ecor d devel oped byA cos t a bef or e the s tat e courti ndi cat es onl ythat , at
s om e poi ntdur i ng a t w o- hour per i od befor e A cos t a conf es s ed, he w as t ol d thathe had be en iden ti fied in a li n eu p . T h is rec o rd d o es n o t p erm itu s to c o n clud e tha t r ejec ti o n o f A co sta’s M ir a n d a /I n n is c la im w a s o b je c tiv e ly u n re a s o n a b le
. F irst, In n is in stru c ts th a t e v id e n c e th a t p o lice c o n d u c t “s tru c k a re sp o n siv e c h o rd ” in
a de t a i ne d p e r s on i s no te no ug h, byi t s e l f, t o e qu a t e t he c on du c tt o “ i nt e r r og a t i on . ” 44 6 U. S. at303. W e doubt , how ever , w hethera pet i t i onercan stat e
– m uch l es s demonstr at e – a
cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on underM i r anda a nd I nni s w i t houtas s ert i ng s uch a r es pons i ve ef fec t i n hi s o wn c a s e . Se e i d
. ( h o l d i n g t h a t s u s p e c t ’ s s t a t e me n t “ mus t [ b e ]
. . . t h e p r o d uctof
w o rd s o r a c tio n s o n th e p a rt o f th e p o lice th a t th e ysh o u ld h a v e k n o w n w e re re a so n a b lylik e ly t o el i ci tan i ncr i m i nat i ng r es pons e” ( emphasi s added) )
. A cos t a fa i l ed t o m ake s uch an
a ss e rtio n b e f

o re th e sta te c o u rt a n d , in a n y e v e n t, th e re c o rd in d ica tes th a t s ig n if ica n t ev e n ts
o c c u rre d b e tw e e n th e ti m e A c o sta lea rn e d a b o u t th e re su lts o f th e lin e u p a n d w h e n h is stat em en t w as m ad e tha t un d erm ine a n yclaim o f a ca u sal l ink b etw ee n D etec ti v e A g u il ar’s di s cl os ur e and A cos t a’ s s t at ement . B efor e A cos t a made t he stat em ent , he as ked t o s peak
w it h a p r o se c u to r. S e e su p ra a t [ 6] . A f te r c o n s u ltin g w ith a n a s s is ta n t d is tr ic t a tto r n e y, D et ect i ve A gui l ar r epor t ed t o A cos t a t hat , beca us e he had i nvoked hi s r i ghtt o couns el , the27

as s i s t antdi s t r i ctat t or neyw oul d nots peak t o A cos t a w i t houtdefe ns e counse l p rese nt . I d. A c o sta d o e s n o t ar g u e – n o r d o e s th e re c o rd in d ica te – th a t D e tec tiv e A g u ilar th e re a f ter sa id
ordi d anyt hi ng t o ur ge A cos t a t o w ai ve hi s r i ght t o couns el
. R ather , w i t h t he r i ghtt o couns el th u s re itera ted a n d w ith th e a u th o rities ’ c o m m itm e n t to h o n o rin g that r i g h t co n f irm e d , A c o sta
v o lu n tee re d to D e tec tiv e A g u ilar th a t h e h a d sta b b e d D e n n is C e tter b u t th a t h e h a d a c ted o n ly in se lf -d e f e n se . O n th is rec o rd , it w o u ld n o t h a v e b e e n o b jec tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le f o r th e sta te
co u rtto co n clud e tha t A co sta’s st atem en t w as n o t “th e p ro d u c t of ” D etec ti v e A g u il ar’s di s cl os ur e r egar di ng t he l i neup. R hode I s l and v. I nni s , 446 U
. S. at303. S e c o n d , ev e n w ith o u t th e se in ter v e n in g e v e n ts, w e a r e n o t p e rsu a d e d th a t th e sta te
cour t s w er e compel l ed t o equat e D et ect i ve A gui l ar ’ s di s cl os ur e of t he r es ul t s of the l i neup t o i nt err ogat i on underI nni s . W hi l e the Supr eme C our ti n M ir anda s ugges t ed thatt he di s cl os ur e of l i neup i dent i fi cat i ons coul d be us ed bypol i ce “ t o i ndu ce a confes s i on outof tr icke ry , ” M ir an d a v . A ri zo n a, 3 8 4 U
. S
. at 4 5 3 , this d o es n o t co m p el a c o n clus ion that ev ery di s cl os ur e of a n i dent i fi cat i on orof otheri ncul pat oryev i d e n c e c o n s t i tu t e s i n t e rr o g at i on under cl ear l yes t abl i s hed Supr eme C our tpr ece den t. R ather , I nni s cal l s upon cour t s t o cons i der pol i ce c onducti n l i ghtof the t otal i t yof the ci r cumst ance s i n as s es s i ng w hethert he pol i ce “s houl d have know n” that t hei ract i ons “w er e r eas onabl yl i kel yt o el i ci tan i ncr i m i nat i ng
r es pons e. ” 446 U
. S. at303. A ppl y i ng t hi s s t andar d, cour t s have notendor s ed the propos i t i on t hat “s t at ement s byT h e S upr eme C our tvaca t ed the Ei ghth C i r cui t ’ s j udgm enti n A l l en and r emanded for 7 fur t hercons i der at i on i n l i ghtof R i ng v. A r i zona, 536 U
. S. 584 ( 2002) ( hol di ng t hatA r i zona s t atut e al l ow i ng t r i al j udge t o det erm i ne pr es ence orabs ence of aggr avat i ng fac t or s i n capi t al cas e vi ol at ed S ixth A m endment )
. See A l l en v. U ni t ed St at es , 536 U
. S. 953 ( 2002)
. T he deci s i on on r emand i s r epor t ed at 406 F. 3d 940 ( 8th C i r . 2005) ( en banc )
. T hi s s ubs equent hi s t or y does not cal l i nt o ques t i on t he Ei ght h C i r cui t ’ s hol di ng i n the pas s age quot ed above
. 28 l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s t o a s us pectr egar di ng th e n atur e of the evi dence agai ns tt he
s us pectcons t i tut e i nt err ogat i on as a m att er of l aw , ” r ecogni zi ng that“[i ] ts i m pl ycannotbe
s ai d t hatal l s uch stat em ent s ar e obj ect i vel yl i kel yt o r es ul ti n i ncr i m i nat i ng r es pons es by th o se in c u sto d y .” U n ited S tate s v . P a yn e , 9 5 4 F .2 d 1 9 9 , 2 0 3 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (e m p h a sis added) ; s ee a l s o C aput o v. N el s on, 455 F. 3d 45, 50 ( 1s tC i r . 2006) ( “‘ [T]he I nni s defi ni t i on
o f in te rr o g a tio n is no t so b roa d as to ca p ture w ith in M ir an d a’s rea ch all d ec laratory
s t at ement s by pol i ce offi cer s conce r ni ng t he natur e of t he char ges agai ns t t he sus pect and the
ev iden ce relati n g to tho se c h a rg e s .’” (qu o ti n g U n it ed S tat es v . P ay n e, 95 4 F
. 2 d at 20 2 )). In d e e d , co u rts h a v e g e n e ra lly re jec ted c laim s, su c h a s A c o sta ’s, th a t d isc lo su re o f th e re su lts of a l i neup orot heri ncul pat or yevi dence pos s es s ed byt he pol i ce, w i t houtm or e, cons t i tut es “i nt err ogat i on” underI nni s . See U ni t ed St at es v. A l l en, 247 F. 3d 741, 765 ( 8th C i r . 2001) ( h o l d i n g t h a t “ i n f

o r mi n g [ d e f

e n d a n t ] o f th e r e s u l t s o f t h e l i n e u p d i d n o t a mou n t t o t he funct i onal equi val entof i nt err ogat i on forp u rpo ses of t he Fi fth A m endment ” w her e “the offi cers i m pl ydes cr i bed the r es ul t s of the l i neup, u n ac co m pani ed byanythr eat s orother compel l i ng pr es s ur e”) ; s ee a lso Caput o v. N el s on, 455 F. 3d at51 ( hol di ng t hatno 7 i n t e rr o g a t i o n o c c u r r ed w her e def endantm er el yoverhear d offi cerdi s cus s i ng cert ai n evi dence29

o n th e p h o n e ); E a sle yv . F re y , 4 3 3 F .3 d 9 6 9 , 9 7 4 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (h o ld in g th a t sta te c o u rt d id notactunr eas onabl yi n r ej ect i ng cl ai m t hat offi cer ’ s “mat t er - of- fac t comm uni cat i on of the
e v id e n c e a g a in st [ d e f

e n d a n t] a n d th e p o ten tial p u n ish m e n t h e f a c e d ” d id n o t co n stitu te i n t err ogat i on) ; E noch v. G r aml ey , 70 F. 3d 1490, 1500 ( 7th C i r . 1995) ( hol di ng t hat i ncr i m i nat i ng s t at ement s w er e not r es ul tof i nt err ogat i on w her e “the pol i ce i dent i f[i ed] t he vi ct i m t o t he s us pect and br i efl y s t at [ed] t he evi dence agai ns thi m ”) ; Shedel bow erv. E s t el l e, 885 F. 2d 570, 572- 73 ( 9t h C i r . 1989) ( i nform i ng defe ndantthathe had be en iden ti fied by
r ape vi cti m w as “nott he func t i onal equi val entof ques t i oni ng”) ; cf. U ni t ed St at es v. Szym ani ak, 934 F. 2d 434, 436- 37, 439 ( 2d C i r . 1991) ( hol di ng thati nt err ogat i on occurr ed
w h ere o ff

icer v isi ted d ef

en d an t “th ree o r fo u r t im es” to co n fro n t him w ith incu lpato ry in f o rm a tio n a n d “ re q u e st[ e d ] th a t h e g iv e [ th e p o lice ] a sta tem e n t”) ; se e g e n e ra lly D AV I D M. N I SS MAN & E D H AG EN , L A W O F C ON F ES SI ON S § 5: 8 ( 2d ed. 2009) ( “A few cour t s have f ound t hat t al king abo ut the ev i den ce can be int err og at i on , even w here the o ffi cer as ks no qu est i on s. H o w e v e r, t h e m a

jo ri ty o f c a s e s h a v e g o n e th e o th e r w a y .” ). In su m , g iv e n th e v a g u e , inc o m p lete re c o rd d e v e lo p e d b yA c o s ta b e f o re th e sta te
c o u rts a n d th e c a se law c ited a b o v e , w e c a n n o t co n c lu d e th a t itw a s o b jec tiv e lyu n re a so n a b le
u n d er c learlyestab li sh ed S u p rem e C o u rtp rec ed en t to h o ld tha t D etec ti v e A g u il ar’s di s c l o s u r e o f t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e l i n e u p d i d n o t c o n s t i tu t e “ i n t e r r o g a t i o n ” u n d e r I n n i s . See J acks on v. Fr ank, 348 F. 3d 658, 665 ( 7th C i r . 2003) ( obs ervi ng t hat“the det erm i nat i on by30

o n e o f o u r si ster cir cu it s tha t” a p arti cu la r c la im is w ith o u t m erit“c ertainlym ak es itm o re d i f f i c u l tt o c o n c l u d e t h a t ” t h e s t a t e c o u r t“ u n r e a s o n a b l y a p p l i e d S u p r e m e C o u r ta u t h o r i ty” i n r ej ect i ng a s i m i l arcl ai m )
. W e nee d n otcons i derw hetherfur t herr ecor d devel opm ent
m i ghthave r evea l ed addi t i onal fac t s s uppor t i ng A cos t a’ s cl ai m , beca us e A cos t a “be ar s the bur den of dem ons t r at i ng an unre as onabl e appl i cat i on of fe der al l aw , ” and he m us tal s o bear t he cons equenc es of h is f ail u r e t o devel op a more compl et e r ecor d on t hatpoi nt . Sor t o v. H erber t , 497 F. 3d at167; s ee i d. at167 ( “B eca us e [pe t i t i oner ] bear s the bur d en of d em o n str ati n g an u n rea so n ab le a p p lic a tion o f f ed era l l aw , the in su ff

ici en cyo f th e re co rd d e f e a t s h i s p e t i t i o n . ” ) ; c f
. 2 8 U. S. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( p r o v i d i n g , wi t h e x c e p t i o n s n ot r el evant h e re , tha t h a b e a s p e ti ti o n e r is n o t en tit led to e v id e n tiary he a rin g w h e re h e “ h a s f a iled to d e v e l o p t h e f

a c tu a l b a s i s o f

a c l a i m i n S t a t e c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s ” )
. Th u s , we r e a c h t h e s a me
c o n c lu sio n o n d e n o v o re v iew a s th e d istric t c o u rt: A c o sta f a ils to d e m o n stra te th a t th e sta te
co u rt ’s ad m issi o n o f his v o lun teered co n fe ssion v iolated c learlyestab li sh ed S u p rem e C o u rt p re c e d e n t. I I I . C oncl usi on T o s um m ar i ze, w e conc l ude: ( 1) T he r e v i e w au t h o r i t yo f New Y o r k ’ s App e l l a t e Di v i s i o n t o h e a rc l a i ms of
un pr ot e s t e d e r r ori s di s c r e t i on a r y . A qu e s t i on t hu s a r i s e s un de rCas t i l l e v. Pe op l e s , 48 9 U. S. 3 4 6 , a s to w h e th e r A c o sta ’s d ire c t ap p e a l ch a llen g e to th e trial c o u rt’s f a ilu re su a sp o n te to31

r econs i dert he adm issi b il ityof hi s confe s s i on w as adequa t el yexhaus t ed i n the abs ence of i n d i c a t i o n t h a tt h e s t a t e a p p e a l s c o u r ta c tu a l l ya d d r e s s e d th e me r i t s o f th e c l a i m. (2) T h e a p p li ca b il ityo f C asti ll e to th is case n ee d n o t be d ec ided b ec au se th e re co rd
re v e a ls a m o re f

u n d a m e n tal e x h a u stio n d e f e c t: A c o sta f

a iled c lea rlyto id e n tify f o r th e sta te
a p p e lla te c o u rt th a t h e w a s c h a rg in g th e trial ju d g e w ith a n e rro r in f a ili n g su a sp o n te to
r econs i dert he admi s s i bi l i ty of hi s confe s s i on, w hi ch err or w as s epar at e and di s t i nctfr om any d e c is io n m a d e b yth e h e a ri n g ju d g e in d e n y in g A c o s ta ’s s u p p re s s io n m o tio n . (3 ) B e c a u se n o sta te r e m e d ies re m a in a v a ila b le to A c o sta , h is u n e x h a u ste d c laim is deemed proce dur al l ybarr ed. A cos t a fa i l s t o demonstr at e the ca us e and pr ej udi ce or
m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce ne ces s aryt o s ecur e a mer i t s r evi ew of s uch a barr ed cl ai m . I ndeed, he
c a n n o t d o so b e c a u se h is c laim lac k s m e rit. O n th e re c o rd p re se n ted to th e sta te c o u rt, A c o sta
cann ot dem on strat e t hat cl earl yest abli shed S up rem e C ou rtpreceden tcom pell ed the sta te
cour tt o concl ude thathi s confe s s i on, m ade a ft eri nvocat i on of the ri g h t t o couns el , w as i nadmi s s i bl e as t he pr oductof i nt err ogat i on r athert han admi s s i bl e as a vol unt eer ed sta tem e n t. T he judgm ent of t he d i stri ctcou rtden y i ng a w ri tof h abeas co rpus i s AF F I R MED .