2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-19-2008 

# Mi l le r v . H orn P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 00-9011

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Mi l le r v . H or n" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 74. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/74NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT


### No. 00- 9011
J OSE P H DA NI EL M I LL ER, A ppel l ant

v. M A R T IN H O R N , C om m i ssi on er, P enn sy l van i a D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s; C O N N E R B L A I N E , J R
. , Super i nt endentof the St at e C or r ect i onal I ns t i tut i on, G r eene C ount y ; J O SE PH M A Z U R K I E W I C Z , Super i nt endent

o f t h e S t a t e Co r r e c t i o n a l I n s t i tu t i o n a tRo c k v i e w; A T T O R N E Y G E N E R A L O F T H E S T A T E O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA
APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E M ID D L E D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D
. C
. C i vi l N o. 00- cv- 00789) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e Y vet t e K ane
A r gued: D ece m ber11, 2008
B efor e: B A R R Y , SM I T H , and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: D ece m ber19, 2008)

M ar i a K
. Pul zett i , E s q. ( A r gued) D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia F e d e ra l C a p ital H a b e a s C o rp u s U n it T he C urt i s C enter , S uit e 54 5 W est Indepe nd ence S qu are W est Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106- 00002

C ouns el forA ppel l ant
Fr anci s T
. C har do, E s q. . ( A r gued) O ffi ce of D i s t r i ctA t t or ney F ro n t & M a rk e t S tre e ts D aup hin C ou ntyC ou rtho use H arr i s bur g, PA 17101- 0000 C ouns el forA ppel l ee

OP I NI ON

B A R R Y , C i r cui tJ udge J os eph D ani el M i l l erw as convi ct ed on M ar ch 24, 1993 of the 1987 ki dnappi ng
a n d f irst-d e g re e m u rd e r o f

S e len a F ra n k lin a n d th e 1 9 8 9 f irst-d e g re e m u rd e r o f

S tep h a n ie M cD uffe y . H i s cas e has been be for e the Penns y l vani a s t at e court s , t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our t , and thi s C our tevers i nce. W e nee d notr epr i s e thos e l ong and t or tur ous pr ocee di ngs and the mul t i tude of i s s ues r ai s ed ther ei n beca us e theyar e w el l know n t o t he p a rt ie s a n d to th e c o u rt s w h ic h h a v e c o n s id e re d th e m o v e r t h e s e m a n yy e a rs . I ti s notdi s put ed thatonl yone cl ai m r emai ns : w hether , beca us e of M i l l er ’ s m ent al retarda ti o n , o rga n ic bra in d am ag e, an d d istress a t th e ti m e, his M ir an d a w aive rs w ere i nvol unt aryand unknow i ng, and w hethercouns el ’ s fai l ur e t o offe revi dence att he
su p p re ss io n h e a rin g o f

M ill e r’s a lleg e d in a b ili tyto v a lid lyw a iv e h is M ira n d a rig h ts3

b e c a u se o f

h is m e n tal c o n d iti o n w a s c o n stitu tio n a llyin e f f e c tiv e . N e ith e r is th e a p p lica b le law d isp u ted : f

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

is p re c lu d e d a s to a n yc laim a d ju d ica ted o n th e m e rits i n St at e courtpr ocee di ngs , as w as t he cl ai m her e, unl es s t he adj udi cat i on ( 1) r es ul t ed i n a dec i s i on t hatw as 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 byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es ; or (2 ) re su lted in a d e c isio n th a t w a s b a se d o n a n u n re a so n a b le det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s i n l i ghtof the evi dence pr es ent ed i n t he S ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g . 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 (d ). T he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded, as t o t he val i di t yof the M i r anda w ai ver s , t hatt he P e n n sy lv a n ia S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n w a s n o t co n tra ryto n o r in v o lv e d a n u n re a so n a b le appl i cat i on of cl ear l yes t abl i s hed l aw as det erm i ned byt he Supr eme C our tof the U ni t ed St at es , norw as i t s deci s i on bas ed on an unr eas onabl e det erm i nat i on of the fa ct s . T he Di s t r i c tCo u r ta l s o c o n c l u d e d , a s t o i n e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l , t h a tt h e P CRA C our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the l aw – m os tpar t i cul ar l ySt r i ckl and v. W as hi ngt on, 466 U
. S. 668 ( 1984) – t o t he fa ct s w as notunr eas onabl e. W e have r evi ew ed the ext ens i ve r ecor d i n t hi s cas e, have c ar eful l ycons i der ed that par tof the ca s e thatr emai ns forourcons i der at i on, and have hear d or al ar gum ent . Suffi ce i tt o s ayt hatt he conc l us i on of the D i s t r i ctC our tw as emi nent l ycorr ect , and w i l l be
a f f ir m e d
.