Ra nd y Dav i s , w ho be c a m e w a r de n a ft e r thi s a ppe a l wa s fi l e d,  ha s be en sub stitut e d f or G reg or y Sch w artz , as the ap p ellan t. S eeF ed . R . A p p . P . 43 (c)(2 ).



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3535 A RIS E THERLY, P etitio ner-A pp ellee, v. R AN D Y D AV IS, W ar den,  R es pond ent -App el lant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 07 C0057

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judg e.
A RGUED D ECE MBE R 11, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 2010

Befo re B AUER, R IPPLE, an d K ANN E , C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Cir cu it Judge . Thi s a pp ealar i ses fro m the distr i ct c ourt ’ s deci sio n to g ra nt A ri s Ether l y’ s peti ti on f or h ab e a s c o r p u s r e l i e f p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 2 5 4. The d istri ct cou rt re v ie w ed the Il linois A p p ell ate C ou rt’s deter m i nati on that Ether l y’ s inculpato ryst atem en t t o2 N o. 09

- 3535 the pol i ce was vol untary
. Based on the appli cabl e “ tot al i ty of th e ci rcum sta nces” tes t, the dist ri ct c ourtr ule d such d et er m in at ion by th e a p p ella te co u rtw as ob j ec tiv ely un reason able. A s a result of th is ruling, the d is t r ic t cou rt g r an te d Ethe r l y ’ s habe as c o r pus pe ti ti o n, de ni ed th e st at e’ s m o ti o n to st aythe j udg m en t pen di nga ppea l, a nd or d er ed th e s ta te t o e ith er ret ry or re lea se E th er ly w i thi n 120 days. The sta te appeal ed the denia l ofi ts m oti on f ora sta y ofr el eas e a nd w e h eard or alar gum ents on that i ssue, afte r whi ch we g r an te d by per cur i am o p inion the st at e’s m ot ion for a st ay . E ther ly v. Schwa rtz , 590 F .3d 53 1 ( 7th C ir. 20 09)
. W e found that be cause i t was notr eason ably l ikel y tha t w e w ou ld affirm the d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on, the tr adit i onalf acto rs r egul ating the i ssuance ofa sta y o utw eig h ed Ether l y’ s pre sum pti on in f avo r of re l e a s e p e nd i nga pp e a l

. We no w r e v e r s e the g r a nto f ha beas corp us rel ief

.
I. B ACK GR OUN D On th e n i g h t o f J u l y 1 3 , 1 9 9 5 , i n C h i c a g o , I l l i n o i s, t he nfi fteen-yea r-ol d A ris E th erly an d several other m em bers of the Gangster Disc i ple s str eet gang got i nto a car and drove arou n d lo oking to sho ot and ki l lm em ber s o f a ri val g a n g , the V ice Lord s. Jerem y Ru sh and H en ry W i ngar d w er e s tandi ng o n W i ngar d’s fro nt por ch w hen the Gangst er D i sci ple s’ carapproa ched. W i ngar d w as wea r i nga c ap wi ththe b r im turne d t o the l eft, s i g ni fy i ng th athe was a mem ber o fthe Vi ce Lo r ds. W he n the car ’ s o ccupa n ts star ted sho oting, W i ngar d safel y duckedN o. 09

- 3535 3 i nsi de the house, but R u sh was not so f or tunate. Rush wa s f a t a l l y s ho ti n the h e a d. Fou r day s afte r the sh ooting, Ch icago po li ce offi cers ar r i ve d a t Eth er l y ’ s ho us e b etw een 5 : 00 a nd 5 : 30 i n the m or ni ng. W hen Etherl y’ s f atheranswered the door, pol i ce n ot ice d th at a gr ou p of p eo p le w er e, giv en t h e e ar ly hou r, s us pi ci o us l y g athe r ed i n the ho m e. The o ffi ce rs i nfo rm ed the f atherthattheywe re in vest i gat i ng a s h o o t i n ga nd wan t e d t o i n t e r v i e w E th e r l y . T h e r e i s s o me di spu te c o nc erni ngthe de ta i l s o fthi s co nv er sa ti o n. The f athercla i m ed that the offi cer s w er e vague, di d not i nfo rm hi m wh er e they were ta ki ng hi s s on, and that th ey said that Et he rly cou ld b e picke d up i n an hou r. I n contr ast, Detec tiv es Gol ab a nd S pencer re counted te llin g t h e fa th er th at th ey w er e t ak in g E th er ly to th eir A re a 2 Detect i ve Divi si on o ffi ce o n 111 th S tr eet, o ffer ed f orthe f ather to fol l ow them to the sta ti on, and prov i ded the f atherwith a busi n es s ca rd. Rega rdl ess o fwh at Etherl y’ s f ather sai d t o the pol i ce or w hat they sa id to hi m, the s e r i e s o fe v e nt s tha tf o l l o we d a r e u nd i s pu t e d. T h e o ffi c e r s a r r i v e d a tth e s t a t i o n a r o u n d 6 : 0 0 a . m. w ith E th er ly in to w . E t h e r l y w as n otint er vie w ed u n til 8:0 0 a.m ., at w h ich tim e Yo u th O ffice r Fr an k D iG ra zia ar ri ved. W i th O ffi cerDiGra zi a in the ro om , Detect i ve Sp en c er firstrea d E th er ly h is M ira n d a r i g h ts an d E th er ly sta te d tha th e u nd e r s t o o d tho s e r i g ht s . De t e c t i v e S pe nc er th enque st i o ne d Ethe r l y . Etherl y i ni ti al l y de ni ed an y i nv o l ve m en t in the s ho o ting . At n o t i m e th r o ug ho ut the day did Offi cerDiG ra zi a m ake an a tte m pt to speak to Etherl y.4 N o. 09

- 3535 W i thno i nf o r m at i o n fo r th co m i ngfr om Ethe r l y, the i nter vi ew co ncl ud ed afterthi rty m i nutes. Etherl y then re quested to use the b athr oo m , and he was es cor ted th er e b y a n u n id en tifie d u n iform ed offic er . U p o n h is re t urn fr o m the r e s t r o o m, Ethe r l y r e qu e s t e d t o s pea k t o Det ec ti ve S pen ce r . Di Gr azia was no t pr es en t dur i ng thi s s eco nd co nver sat i on. E ther l y t ol d D ete cti ve Spencer that he wanted to show him wh er e the guns i nvol ved i n the f atalsho oting were hi dd en. Detecti ve Spencer th ena sk ed Det ec ti ve Go l ab t o meetwi thE th er l y, a nd Detec t i v e Go l ab r e mi nd e d E the r l y o fh i s Mi r a nd a r i g ht s. Etherl y info rm ed the detect i ves that the uni f or m ed offic er h ad to ld h im th at h e h ad an ob liga tio n to te ll the t ruth, an d t h at “i t would g o bett erf orhi m i n cour t” i fhe he l ped the pol i ce t o loc ate the guns. Detect i ve Gol ab t est i fi ed that he to l d Etherl y tha t “t h ey co uld not prom i se hi m anythi ng o therthan to i n for m the cour t o f his assistan ce,” and Et he rly ind icated that h e un d ersto o d. Ethe r l y the n l ed th e det ec ti ve s to wher e th e g uns wer e l o ca te d. The fi rst t i m e th e st at e i nf o r m ed th e tr i alj udg e o fEthe r l y ’ s co o per at i o n was a t th e he ar i ng on Ether l y’ s m oti on t o supp re ss hi s s tat em ents. Upon h i s r etur n t o the s ta ti o n, Eth er l y m etwi thAss i st an t St ate ’ s Attor ney ( “A SA”) J ose p h A l esi a, Detect i ve Gol ab, and Offi cerDiGra zi a. A l es ia i ntro du ced hi m sel fto E th erly a nd exp lai ne d that his rol e w as as a p rosecu tor, n otas E th er ly’s at to rn ey . H e t h e n ad vis ed E th er ly of h is M i r a nd a r i g ht s , wh i ch Et he r l y c l a i med t o u nd e r s t a nd

. Etherl y r equeste d and m ade a cour t- re port ed sta tem ent, to w h ich h e a d d ed h is ow nh an d w rit te n st at e m e n t . In bo th stat ement s he c o nfes se d t o hi s i nv o l ve m en t i n the shoo ti ng, i ncl ud i ng the f act that he had fire d se ven s hots

.N o. 09

- 3535 5 Du ring the i nter vi ew w i th A SA A l esi a, Ether l y s ai d that he ha d been treated w ell by th e p oli ce, th at h e u n d ersto od hi s r i ghts at a llti m es, and that hi s s tat em ent was vol u ntar y. In re sponse to A SA A l esi a’ s inquir y into w hetheranyo ne had m ade any prom ises i n exchange f orE ther l y’ s s tat em ent, Ether l y r epl i ed that the unnam ed uni f o r m ed o ffi ce rha d t o l d hi m “ to g etthe guns so the j ud ge w oul d know I hel ped them

. ” Prior to the su p p ression h earing, the trialcou rt ord ered that Et he rly be eva luated by D r . P h ill ip Pa n, a staff p sychia tr i st f orCookCounty’ s F or ensi c Cl i ni calS er vi ces. I n h is r ep ort, D r. Pan stated that Et he rly w as o n ly m argi n all y c oo perat i ve w i th the inter vi ew . H e o pined that al th o ug h Ethe r l y was de pr es se d a nd ha d b o r der l in e in te llec tu al fu n c tio n in g, h e fo u n d th at E th er ly w as ab le to und er sta nd hi s M i ra nd a r i ghts an d knowingl y wai ve the m. T he r e po r tc o nc l ud e d “ tha t[ Ethe r l y ] u nd e r s t a nd s that he i s no t r equi re d to tal k t o the pol i ce, . . . [ and] that he i s e nti tl ed to have a l aw yerpre sent w hi l e he i s questio n ed .” Etherl y c onte ste d th e a dm i ssi on o fhi s s tat em ent, ar gu in g t h at it h ad be en m ad e in vo lu n ta rily a n d u n in te lligently. Ether l y pointed out that hi s handw ri tte n statem en t had a nu m be r of sp ell ing errors. A lso, Et he rly’ s f atherte sti fi ed that Etherl y was i l l i ter ate and had bee n ta ki ng speci aleducati on cl ass es si nce the se cond gr ade. H e a l so tes ti fi ed that Etherl y had o nl y a tte nd ed schoo l th ro u gh h is fre sh m an ye ar of h igh sc h oo l, an d on ly th enb y s uppl ement i ngthe s ta nda r d c ur r i cul um wi tha speci alt u to r. S ti l l, he ha d fa i l ed al lhi s co urse s. A fter6 N o. 09

- 3535 bal anci ng al lthe evi denc e, the tr i alco urt f ound that Etherl y’ s s tat em ent was vo l untary
. I t there f or e deni ed E th er ly’s m ot ion to su p p re ss th e s ta te m en t. A t t ri al, Ether l y prese nted a si ngl e w i tness i n hi s defense, Rebecca Geor ge. G eorge , a tea cheratthe Cook County J uveni l e Tem pora ryDetenti on C enterwh er e Ether l y was hel d pe n ding tr i al, te sti fi ed that Etherl y was i l l i ter ate
. Geo r g e stated tha t Eth er l y pr o g r es se d s l o wl y dur i ng phonics l ess ons. S he o bser ved thathe ha d diffi cul ty k no wi ngthe s o un d s o fthe l et te r s o fthe a l phabe t an d th at “h e u se s w or d s . . . from h o w h e h ea rs oth er p eo p le use words. ” T he sta te’s evide nc e at trialcons isted of W ingard ’s testim ony abou t the shootin g; O fficer Robe rt Ba ike’s tes ti m ony that he r eco ver ed . 380- cal ibers hel lcas i ngs fro m the m urder scene; Detect i ve Gol ab’ s a nd Detect i ve Sp en c er ’s a c c ou n t s o f th e in ve st iga tio n, in c lu d in g t h eir i nter vi ews with Ether l y a nd hi s di scl osur e o fthe

. 38- cal iber revolver’s l ocat ion; forensic sp eciali st E rnes t W a rner’s concl usi on that the bul l et fou nd i n Rush’s bra i n w as fi re d fr om the sam e weapon thatfi re d the . 380- cal iber cas i ng s f o und a t th e m ur ders ce ne ; a nd then-A SA A l esi a’ s t est i m ony re gar ding Etherl y’ s inculpato ryst ate
m en t. A t t h e c los e o f tria l, th e j u ry fou n d E th er ly gu ilty of first -d eg re e m u rd er . Th e c ou rtse n te n c ed h im to a for ty- yea r ter m o fi m pri sonm ent. O n ap p ea l to t h e Illino is A p p ella t e C ou rt, E th er ly ar gu ed , am on g ot h er th in gs , t h a t t h e t ria l co u rterr ed in fi nd i ng tha t hi s inculpato ryst ate m ent t o the pol i ce was v o l u n t a r y . T h e c o u r ta p p l i e d a t o t a l i t y o fth e c i r c u m-N o. 09

- 3535 7 sta nces tes t t o deter m i ne wh etherEther l y’ s co nfe ssi on w as volun tary. T he cou rt stated that the relevan t factors i ncl ud ed “the d efendant’s ag e, educati on, i ntel l i gence , experi ence, and p hysi calco nd i ti on; wh etherhe was advi sed o fhi s co nsti tuti onalr i ghts; the exi ste nce o f th r ea ts , pr o m i se s o rphy si ca lo r m en ta lc o er ci o n; a nd whe the rthe c o nfe s s i o n wa s ind uc e d by po l i c e de c e pti on. ” ( Appe l l a ntApp
. a t3 6
. ) T he c o ur ta l s o a ddr e sse d the ad d i ti onalf acto rs f ordeter m i ni ng the vo l untariness ofj uveni l e s tat em ents, such a s the ti m e of day w hen qu estioning occu rre d , the p resen ce or absen ce of a par en t, a nd the min o r ’ s pr ev i o us e xpe rience w i ththe co ur t sy st em. The c o ur t st at ed th at “[t ] he o ve r r i di ng c onc ern . . . i s w he th er the d efend an t’s w il l w as overborne. ” ( Id

. ) T he cour t f ound that the f ol l owing f acto rs w ei ghed in f avo r of find i ng tha t the st ate m ent was i nvol untary : ( 1) Etherl y was fi ftee n yea rs o l d at the ti m e o fthe sta tem en t; ( 2) Ethe r l y ha d a l ac ko fi nt el l ec tu alc apacity ; a nd ( 3) E th erl y had no experi ence w i th the cr i m i nalj usti ce sys tem
. The co urt then di scusse d the f acto rs that w ei ghed i n f avo r offi nd i ng t h e statem ent v ol untary : ( 1) Ether l y’ s f ather w as i nfo rm ed that hi s s on was w anted f orquesti oni ng in c onnecti on with the shoo ti ng; ( 2) a y o uth o ffi ce rwas pr es en t dur i ngthe que st i o ni ng and Etherl y nev err equested to conferwith the yo uth offi cer ; ( 3) E th er l y was r ead hi s M i ra nd a r i ghts on se ve r alo cc as i o ns a nd he r epe at edly i ndi ca te d tha t he un d e r s t ood his ri gh ts; (4) p riorto Eth erly’ s incu lpato ry sta tem ent b ei ng m ade, D etecti ve Gol ab c l ar i fi ed to E th er ly th at n o p ro m ise s co u ld be m ad e a n d th ey co u ld8 N o. 09

- 3535 onl y info rm the j ud ge of hi s a ssi sta nce; ( 5) Dr. Pan foun d tha t Eth er l y unde r st o o d hi s l eg alr i g ht s; a nd ( 6) Ether l y was quest i oned f ora l i m i ted per i od ofti m e. A fter w eighing all of th ese factors, the ap p ell ate cou rt he l d tha t “the t r i alc o ur t’ s fi ndi ng s w ere no t ag ains t th e m an if es t wei g hto fthe e vi den ce , a nd the t o ta l i tyo fthe ci rcum sta nces i nd i cate thatdefendant’s c onfess i on was th e r e s u l to fh i s o wnd e c i s i o n a n d n o tth e r e s u l to fc o mpu l si on o r hi s wil lbeing o verborne. ” ( Id

. a t 39
. ) The Illino is Su p re m e C ou rt su b se q u en tly d en ied E th er ly lea ve to ap p ea l. E th er ly filed a p et itio n for w ritof h ab ea s c or p u s in fe de r a ldi s t r i c tc o ur ti n whi ch h e r a i s e d s i x g r o un ds for reli ef, the cen tral argum en t being th at his incu lpato ry sta tem ent t o the pol i ce w as i nvol untary
. The di str i ct co ur t g r an te d Ethe r l y ’ s habe as c o r pus pe ti ti o n o n the grou nd tha t E t h e r ly ’s s t a t e m e nt w as involun tary and that the I l l i noi s A pp el l ate Court’ s d ete rm i nati on “a m o unt ed to a[ n] unr ea so nabl e appl i ca ti o n o fthe S uprem e Court’ s ‘ tot al i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nces’ te st. ” E ther ly v. Schw artz , 6 49 F
. S upp. 2 d 8 92 , 9 03 (N
. D. I l l

. 2 00 9)
. The dist ri ct c ourtnot ed that a rea so nabl e a pp l i cati on o f that tes t “com pel s” the c oncl usi on that Ether l y’ s s tat em en t w as inv olu n ta ry . ( Id .) Th e s t a t e f i l e d a ti mel y n o t i c e o fa pp e a lt o thi s c o ur t
. On ap p ea l , t h e st at e a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rterr ed in ho l di ngtha t th e I l l i no i s Appel l at e C ou rt a ppl i ed th e tot al i ty of the ci rcum sta nces tes t i n an obj ecti ve ly unreaso n ab le m an n er .N o. 09

- 3535 9 II. A NA LYSIS W e r evi ew the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fhabe as re l i ef deno vo . No r t h e r n v . Bo a t wr ight, 5 9 4 F. 3d 555, 559 (7th Cir. 2010 )
. U nd erthe A n ti ter ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct ( “A ED PA ”) , habea s r el i efm ay be g ra nted o nl y w he n a st at e co ur t dec i si o n i s “c o nt r ary t o , o ri nvo lve d an unreas onabl e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabli sh ed Fe d eral l aw , as de term ined by the Sup rem e C ou rt of th e U n ite d Sta te s” or “ w as b a s e d on an u n re as on ab le deter m i nati on o fthe f acts i n the light o fthe evi dence p re se n te d .” 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (d ); Willia m s v. Tayl or, 52 9 U .S. 36 2, 40 4-0 5 (2 00 0); M organ v. Kr e nke, 23 2 F
. 3d 562, 56 5- 66 (7t hC ir. 20 00 ). A deci si on i s “ contr ar y t o” federa ll aw wh en the st ate c o u r ta p p l i e d a r ul e th a t“ c o n t r a d i c t s th e g o v e r n i n gl a w” set forth by th e Sup rem e C ou rt or i f th e state cou rt re ac h ed a d iffer en t o u tc om e b as ed o n fac ts “m at er ially i ndi st i ng ui sh ab l e” fr o m tho se pr ev i o us l y b efo r e th e Su p re m e C ou rt
. Wi l l i a ms , 529 U .S. at 4 05 -06 ; see also C a ll o w a y v. M o ntg o m ery, 512 F.3d 940 , 943 (7th C ir. 2008). A st ate co urt’ s ap p licati on o fcl ear l y e stabl i shed federa l l aw i s unre aso nabl e i fi t i denti fies t he appropr i ate stand ar d but appli es i t t o the f acts i n a m anner w i th w h ich a re as on ab le c ou rtw o u l d d isa gr ee . Wi l l i a ms , 52 9 U .S . at 4 13 ; Willia m s v. Thu rm er, 5 6 1 F
. 3 d 74 0 , 74 2- 43 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ). M er e e rr ori s insuffi ci ent; “[ r] ather, i n or der t o tr i gge r gr ant o fthe w ri t, the sta te- cour t deci si on m ust be bo th i ncor re ct an d u n re aso nabl e. ” Woods v. M cBr i de, 43 0 F
. 3d 813, 81 7 ( 7th Ci r. 2005)
. U nd erei therpro ng o fthe tes t,10 N o. 09

- 3535

un r e a s o nab l e ne s s i s j udged b y a n o bj e c t i v e s t a nd a r d. B urr v. P o lla rd, 546 F.3d 82 8, 83 1 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). A d ec isio n is n otob j ec tiv ely u n re as on ab le u n les s itfalls “ ‘w ell o ut s i de the b o un da r i e s o f pe r mi s s ib l e di ffe r e nc es of opi ni on. ’ ” Starkweatherv. Sm ith , 574 F. 3d 399, 40 2 (7th C ir. 2009) ( q uo ting H ar daway v
. Young, 30 2 F
. 3d 757, 76 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2) )
. F ur th er, in perf o r m i ngo ure va l ua ti o n, w e pr esum e the f actualfi nd i ngs o fthe sta te cour t to be co r r e c t, u nl e s s the p e t i t i o ne rc a n r e b utthi s p r e s umpt i on by clear and c onv incing ev iden ce. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254(e)(1) ; see also A llen v . B uss , 558 F.3d 657, 661 (7th C ir. 2009). A s a th re sh old m at te r, w e m u st id en tify th e “ c l e ar ly est abl i shed Fe derall aw ” a t i ssue. F or purpose s o f§ 2254, th i s phr as e “r efer s to the ho l dings, as o ppo se d t o the d i c t a , o f [ th e S u p r e me C o u r t ’ s ] d e c i s i o n s a s o f th e t i me ofthe re l evantstat e- cour t deci si on. ” Taylo r, 52 9 U.S
. at 41 2. A d et er m in at ion of w h et h er a c on fes sio n w as inv olunt ary r equi r es a n e xa m i na ti o n o fthe “ to ta l i tyo fthe surr ounding ci rcu m st ances, ” incl ud i ng the char acte r i st i cs o fthe pe r so n in c us to dy an d the de tai l s o fthe in te rr o ga tio n th at res u lte d in t h e s ta te m en t. Schneckloth v. Bu st am onte, 412 U .S. 21 8, 22 5-2 6 (1 97 3) (s ta tin g t h at if a defendant’s co nfe ssi on i s no t “ ‘ the p roduct o fan e ssen tially fr ee an d un con strained ch o ic e by its m aker’ ” and “ ‘ i fh i s wi l lh a s b e e n o v e rb o r ne a nd h i s c a pa c i ty f orse l f

- deter m i nation c ri ti cal l y i m pai re d, the use o f hi s co nfe ssi on o ffends due proce ss’ ” ( q uoting Cul om b ev. Conne ct i cu t, 367U .S. 56 8, 60 2 (1 96 1)))
. Thi s sa m e te sta ppli es to co nfes si o ns b y j uv en i l es , b ut i n thos e cases co nfe ssi ons ar e t o be e val uated withN o. 09

- 3535 11 speci alcar e. In reGa ult, 3 8 7 U .S. 1, 45 (19 67 ); Gil b e r tv. M e r ch ant, 48 8 F.3d 780, 791 (7th Cir. 2007) ( quo ting Ha ley v. O hio , 33 2 U.S
. 59 6, 59 9 ( 1948 ) ). T h e rel evantf acto rs to consi der incl ud e “ the j uveni l e’ s a ge, e x peri ence, educati o n, b ac k g r o und, a nd int el l i g en ce , a nd .

. . whethe r he ha s th e ca pac i ty to unde r st an d the war ni ng s g i ve n h i m , the nature o fhi s F i fth A m en dm ent r i ghts, and the conse quences o fwaiving tho se ri ghts. ” Fare v. M ichael C
. , 44 2 U. S
. 7 07, 7 25 ( 19 79 )
. Othe rc o ns i der at io ns i nc l ude the “l en g tho ft i m e th atthe j uv en i l e was que sti o ne d b y the author i ti es and the ab sence or pre sence ofa parent or ot h erfri endlyadult

. ” G ilbert, 48 8 F
. 3d at 791; see al s o Gal l egos v. Col orado , 3 7 0 U
. S
. 4 9 , 5 4

- 5 5 ( 1 9 6 2 )
. We w ill a l so car efully “ scr uti ni ze pol i ce ques ti oni ng ta cti cs to d e t e r m i n e if ex c es siv e c oe rc ion or in tim id at ion
. . . has t ai nted t h e j uveni l e’ s co nfe ssi on. ” Har daway, 30 2 F. 3d at 765. W e r ec o g ni ze , h ow ever, tha t “i t i s th e to ta l i tyo fthe ci rcum sta nces und er l yi ng a j uveni l e co nfe ssi on, r ather th an t h e pr ese nce o r abse nce o fa si ngl e ci rcum sta nce, th at d et er m in es w h et h er or n otth e c on fes sio n sh ou ld be deem ed vo lu n tar y. ” G ilbert, 488 F.3d at79 3; see also Har daway, 30 2 F
. 3d at 763- 68 ( re fus in g to i m pose a per se rul e that no chi l d und erthe ag e of s i xteen m ay w ai ve hi s r i ghts and denyinghabea s r el i efev en tho ugh a f o ur te en - y ea r - o l d’ s co nfes si o n was o bt aine d wi th o ut th e p re se n c e o f a frie n d ly a d u lt); Fa re, 442 U .S. at 7 25
. W e fi nd , a nd the r e i s n o di s pu t e , tha tthe I l l i no i s Appel l ate Court i denti fi ed and a pp l i ed the cor re c t gover ni ng l aw to deter m i ne w hether Etherl y’ s confess i on was12 N o. 09

- 3535 i nvol untary
. The appel l ate cou rt r eco gni zed the cor re ct totality o f t he circum stan ces tes t and ap p li ed the factors ac c or d in gly . B ec au se relie f is th er efo re u n av aila b le un d er the “c ont rary to” pron g of § 2254(d )( 1), w e turn to w hetherthe sta te appell ate co urt re aso nabl y a p pli ed that tes t. Th e di s t r i c tc o ur tc o nc l ud e d tha tthe s t a t e a pp e l l a te cour t’ s a pp l i cati on o fthe tot al i ty of th e ci rcum sta nces test w as obj ectively un reason able. T he distric t cou rt base d i ts hol din g on its deter m i nati on that the st ate cour t e i therplac ed to o m uch orto o l i ttl e wei ght o n each f acto r i nvol ved

. Fo r exam ple , the dist ri ct c ourtst ate d i twa s “ m or e t ha n a b i ts k e pt i c a l ” o fthe we i g htthe a pp ella te co u rtac c or d ed to E th er ly’s ag e, b or d er lin e in te ll ectualcapaci ty, and l ack ofcr i m i nalbac kg ro und , wh i ch affecte d his abi l i ty to gr asp wh etherpol i ce prom i sed len ien c y i n e x c h an ge for h is s ta te m en t. E ther ly, 64 9 F. S up p. 2 d a t 899. Fur ther, the dist ri ct c ourtst ate d that th e state cou rt placed too m uc h w eight o n t h e l ack of a p rom ise ofa “sp ecifi c ben efi t” in exc h a ng e for E th erly’ s as sis ta n c e, an d to o litt le w eig h t o nth e u n i d e n t ified officer ’ s co m m ents to Etherl y that he “ had a m or alo bl i gati on” t o coo perat e, and i fhe di d so, thati t would “g o b et te r” for h im in c ou rt
. Id

. Contr ary t o the s tat e ap p ella te co u rt, th e d ist ric t c ou rtop in ed t h at E th er ly unde r st o o d the com m en ts t o b e a pr o m i se , a nd tha t th e p olic e kn ew th at su c h a su gg es tio n w a s “re as on ab ly l i kel y t o el i ci t a n i ncri m i nati ng r esponse ” fro m Ether l y. Id

. a t 8 99- 900 ( cit ing Rho de Isl and v. Innis , 44 6 U.S
. 29 1 ( 1980 ) )
. The di str i ct c oncl ud ed that unle ss Ethe rlyN o. 09

- 3535 13

w aiv ed h is M ira n d a rig h ts , E th er ly’s st at em en t s h ou ld h av e b ee n ina d m iss ible

. The dis tr i ct c ourtal so sai d that the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Cou r t putt o o much wei g hto n the l ack of c o er ci o n a nd o n the M i r an da war ni ng s pr o vi ded an d t o o l i tt l e weigh t o n th e pass i ve ne ss o fOffi ce rDi Gr az i a. Acco r di ngt o the dist ri ct c ourt, bec ause ofEther l y’ s a ge, l ow int el l i gence , l ac ko fe xpe r i en ce in the c r i m i na lj us ti ce pr o ce ss , a nd the prese nce o fa passi ve yo uth o fficer, Ether l y c oul d not h av e m ad e a kn ow in g a n d int ellig en t w aiv er of h is M i ra nd a r i ghts. W e pause to note , however, thatwh et her a peti ti oner mad e a kno wi nga nd v o l un t a rywa i v e ro fh i s Mi r a nd a rig h ts is a se p ar at e in q u iry from a vo lu n ta rin es s c laim , see Edwards v. A r izona , 4 51 U. S
. 4 77, 4 83

- 84 ( 19 81 ) , a nd Etherl y nev err ai se d the “know i ng and vo l untary ” w ai verar gum ent. B u t be cause “[ i ] n eva l uati ng wh ether a suspect vol untari l y w ai ved h is M i r anda r i g h t s , we c on sid er the sam e f acto rs . . . i n ass ess i ng the o ver all volu n tari ness ofa confess i on, ” R uv a lca ba v. C ha nd ler, 41 6 F
. 3d 55 5, 5 62 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) , we wi l ldi sc us s th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s c on c lu sio n be low

. The di st r i ctc o ur t’ s o pi ni o n n o twi th st an ding, the I l l i no i s App e l l a t e Co ur tp r o pe r l y a ddr e s s e d a nd c o ns i der ed a llo fthe re l evantf acto rs i n i ts anal ysi s. H ow m uch w ei ght to a ssi gn ea ch f acto r on f acts si m i l arto tho se i n Ethe r l y ’ s ca se may di fferfr o m c o urt to c o ur t, a nd re aso nabl e j uri sts m ay cer tainl y di sag re e. Se eHall v. Was hi ngt on , 1 06 F
. 3d 74 2, 748

- 49 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 7) ( “T he sta tutory ‘ unreas onabl eness ’ st andard allo w s the st ate14 N o. 09

- 3535

c ou rt ’ s c o n c lu sio n to st an d if it is o n e o f se ve ra l eq u ally p lausible outc om es.”). Th erefore, un less the sta te cou rt’s appli cati on o fthese f acto rs was unre asonable, the g r an t o fEthe r l y ’ s h ab e a s c o r pu s p e t i t i o n mus tb e r e v e r s e d. The I l l i noi s Ap pel late Courtev al uated and dis cussed th e i m po r ta nc e o fEther l y ’ s ag e. Be ca us e o fhi s y o uth, the c ourtal so consi dered wh ethera fri endlyadultwas prese nt. T he co urt disc ussed Ether l y’ s f ather ’ s a w ar en e s s o fth e p o l i c e i n t e r v i e w, h i s o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o me to the station, and his poss ession of police cont act inform ati on. A l thou gh h is f athercl ai m ed he was unabl e t o l o ca te hi s so n fo rs ev er alda y s afte rthe i nt er vi ew , the state tri al c o u r t con clud ed , and the ap p ell ate cou rt ag r ee d, tha t th e o ffi ce r s’ te st i m o ny was m o r e cr edibl e. The cour t a l so note d th at O ffi cerDiGra zi a was pres ent b oth d u rin g t h e in itia l qu es tio n in g a n d a t th e tim e th at E th er ly provi de d his wri tte n confess i on. The co urt sai d that al though the yo uth offi cerwas passi ve, Ether l y nev er to ok ad va n ta ge of th e o p p or tu n ity to co n su lt w ith h im
. Th e di s t r i c tc o ur t, h o we v e r, d i sag r e e d wi th the a ppel l at e co ur t’ s fi ndi ng o n th i s l at te r f ac to r, com m en ting th at it “c anno t be s qua r ed wi thS upr eme Co ur t an d Se venth Ci rcui t j uri sprudence, ” a nd i t there f or e “w as un reason able for th e cou rt to con side r [the yout h of ficer] as a fa cto r f avo ring a fi nd i ng o fvo l untariness. ” E ther ly, 649 F. S up p. 2 d a t 900- 01. W e a gr ee w i th the di str i ct cou rt that i t is un reason able to c onc lud e t ha t a fifteen -yearo l d, w ith no pr i o rc r i m i na le xpe r i en ce , s ho ul d b e ex pected to se ek th e ad vi ce o fa youth offi cerwh en that o ffi ce r do es no t m ak e hi s spe ci al r o l e kno wn to theN o. 09

- 3535 15

m i no r . Buti n Fa re, the S upr eme C our t “h el d tha t a si xte en -ye ar - old co u ld m ak e a st at em en t in te llige n tly an d vo lu n ta rily , e ve n w ith ou t t h e p re se n c e o f a frie n d ly adult. ” R uvalcaba , 416 F.3d at56 1; s ee a ls o Hardaway, 30 2 F.3 d at 7 63 ( “[ T]he m er e absence o fa fri endlyadultis b y its elf in su fficie n t t o re q u ire su p p re ss ion of a juv en ile c on fes sio n .”); Johnson v
. Tr igg, 28 F. 3d 639 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) ( re ver si ng the d i str i ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fhabea s r el i ef d es p ite th e u n c ou n se led co n fes sio n of a fou rt ee n -ye ar -old w i th bel ow-ave ra ge i ntel l i gence )
. In f act, “[ e] ven r efusi ng a chi l d’s re quest t o have a par ent o r othe r fri endlyadult( othe r th an a l aw yer ) pre sent i s no t en ou gh to sup p ress th e con fession i f oth er factors i nd i cate thatthe confess i on was vo lu n ta ry . ” Har daway, 302 F. 3d at 765 ( citin g F a re, 442 U
. S. at 718). Inoth er w or d s, th e y o u t h o f fice r d oe s n ot, an d sh ou ld not, play th e rol e of a law yer to the m inor. Th e officer’s prese nce is m or e th an wh at i s r equi re d by l aw to sa feguar d a gainst any abuse of proce ss or coe rci on. There f or e, the di str ict c ou rto ver sta ted the i m porto fthi s f acto r and was i ncor re ct i n concl ud i ng that the sta te ap pel l ate cour t unre aso nabl y wei ghed i ts i m pact. The I l l i no i s Ap p ell at e Cou r t al so r ec o g ni ze d a nd w ei ghed Etherl y’ s l ack ofi ntel l ectualcapacity. A l though the c ourtco ncl ud ed that thi s wei ghed ag ai nst a dm i ssi on o fthe s tat ement, the c o ur t cr edi te d Dr

. Pa n’ s te st i m o ny th at E th er ly u n d er st oo d th a t h e w as n otreq u ire d to ta lk to the pol i ce a nd thatthe p ro secuto r w oul d act up on any info rm ati on pro vi ded byEther l y. The di str i ct c ourt, ho we v e r, a pp e a r i ng t o e ng a g e i n a de novo r ev i ew, f o und16 N o. 09

- 3535 th at th e a p p ella te co u rton ly p aid “ l i p s er vic e” to th is fac to r, co n c lu d in g t h at th e p ro b at ive va lu e a n d cr ed ibi l i ty ofDr. Pan’s r epor t were und er m i ned by the f act tha ts uc h r e po r twa s mo r e tha n o ne y e a ro l d. T he state cou rt’s f actu al find ings are e nt itl ed to deferen ce , unl es s o bj ec ti ve l y unr eason ab l e i n l i g hto fthe evi dence pres en ted i n the sta te- cour t pr oce edi ng. 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254(e)(1) ; C o nn er v. M cBr i de, 375 F
. 3d 643, 64 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. H er e, the sta te cour t r eas onabl y r el i ed on D r. Pan ’s report in con clud ing tha t E th erly un d erst o o d hi s r i g ht s. Ethe r l y di d no t pr es en t cl ea ra nd c o nvin c in g e vid en c e t o re b u t t h e s ta te co u r t ’ s re as on ab le re l i a nc e o n thi s r e po r t
. T he r e f o r e , the di s t r i c tc o ur te r r ed i n r e v i e wi ng s u a spo nte the s tat e co urt’ s fi nd i ngs re gar ding the pr obat i ve val ue o fthe rep ort a nd by f ai l i ngt o a cc o r d pr o perde fer en ce t o tho se fi ndi ng s. The sta te cour t di d not g i ve shor t- shri ft to Etherl y’ s l ow i ntel l i gence , and i ts re l i ance on Dr. P an’ s r epor t was not obj ecti vel y unre aso nabl e. W ith reg ar d to t h e re m ain in g fac to rs , th e Illino is A p p ell ate Courtco nsi dered wh etherpol i ce e ngage d i n physi cal o rps y ch o l o g i ca lc o er ci o n a nd de te r m i ne d tha t no ne exi ste d. The cour t r eas oned that“m erel y t el l i ng [ Etherl y] to tel lthe tr uth .

. . to sho w the j ud ge he co oper ate d d oe s n otco n st itu te a p ro m ise of len ien c y n o r d oe s it ev id en c e t h re at s o r c oe rc ion .” (A p p ella n t A p p . at 3 8.) Fu rt h er , th e c o u r t n o te d th at E th er ly w as giv en h is M i r an da war ni ng s o n mul ti pl e o cc as i o ns , i nc l ud i ng afte r th e co nv er sa ti o n wi th th e uni den ti fi ed o ffi ce r, and h e “ re p ea te d ly i n d i c at ed th at h e u n d er st oo d h is rig h ts .”N o. 09

- 3535 17 ( Id

. at37
. ) The co urt al so obs er ved thatDetect i ve Gol ab m ade cl earthatthe pol i ce coul d m ake no prom i ses . Thus, despit e Ether l y’s a ge, l ack ofi ntel l i gence , and l ack of cr i m i na l bac k g r o und, the s ta te c o ur t f o und tha t th e w ei ght o fth e ev i dence, o n bal ance, f avo re d adm i ssi on ofEther l y’ s s tat em ent. W e ag r ee wi ththe I l l i no i s Appel l ate C o ur t th atthe i nter acti on with the unidenti fi ed pol ice o ffi cerdi d not r i se t o th e l ev elo fc o er ci o n. Al th o ug h we th i nki t o bv i o us th at th e o ffice r’s st at em en t w as ina d vis a b l e , m er ely te llin g s om eb od y t o t ell th e t ru th is n otco er c ive
. S ee Johns on , 2 8 F
. 3d at6 40

- 45
. W e al so a g r ee wi ththe ap p ella te co u rt t h a t n o s p ec ific b en efitw as p ro m ise d in ex c hange f orEther l y’ s co oper ati on, and Detect i ve Gol ab m ade i t cl earthatno prom i ses would be f or thcom i ng. The I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courtdi d not f ai lto co nsider r el ev an t m at er i alf acto r s o rg r o ss l y mis ca l cul at e th e bal an c e. There f or e, i n l i ght o fthe f act that Etherl y was r e a d h i s r i g h t s s e v e r a lt i me s a n d u n d e r s t o o d th e m, was que st i o ne d f o ra v ery l i m i te d peri od o ft i m e, a nd w as n o t c oe rc ed , w e c on c lu d e t h at th e Illino is A p p ell at e Cou r t’ s det er m i na ti o n tha t Etherl y ’ s st at ement w as v o l un t a r y u nd e rthe t o t a l i t y o fthe c i r c ums t a nc es d id n otfall w ell ou ts i d e th e b ou n d ar ies of p er m iss ible d iffer en c es of op in ion
. It th er efo re w as n oto b jec tiv ely unreas onabl e.

III. C ON CLU SI ON The I l l i noi s Ap pe llate Courti denti fi ed the cor re ct to ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s te st, c o ns i der ed al lr el ev an t18 N o. 09

- 3535 f acto rs , and m ade a l ega l l y defensibl e dete rm i nati on th at Etherl y’ s inculpato ryst ate m ent was vo l untary
. A l though no t e ver y r eas onabl e j uri st w oul d have re ached the sam e o utcom e, we hol d that the app ellat e c ou rt ’s a n aly sis an d c o n c lu sio n w er e n otob j ec tiv ely unrea so n abl e under the l aw . There f or e, Ether l y’ s peti ti on f o rh ab e a s c o r pu s r e l i e fs ho ul d h a v e b e e n de ni e d. Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we R EV ERSE the j udg m en t o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ta nd R EMA ND f orfu rt h erpro ce eding s co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

8- 25- 10