NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0340n.06 No. 07-2029 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
MA RI O E VA

NS, Pe tit ion e r- Ap pe lla

nt,
v. RA YM ON D B OO KE R, Respondent-Appe llee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) On Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Ea stern District of Michig an

B e fo re : MA RTI

N, B OG GS, and

CO L E, Cir c uit

Judg e s. BO GGS, Circuit J udg e. Mar io Evans appea ls a district c ourt judg ment denying his pe tition for a writ of habe as cor

pus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On a ppeal, Eva

ns challeng es the district cour t’s conclusion th at t h e M i ch i gan C o u rt o f A p p ea l s d i d n o tu n re as o n ab l y

ap p l y cl ea rl y es t ab l i s h edfe d er al law whe n it ruled that Evans’s c onfession wa s voluntary . Be cause we f ind that the Michig an Court of Appe als did not unr easona bly apply clea

rly established fede ral law, we aff irm the district court’s jud g me nt. I Early on the morni ng of Mar ch 1, 2001, De troit police arr ested Eva ns for his suspecte d involvement in a re cent homicide. R. 13 at 28-29. Over the next three and a half day s, Evans wa s he ld i nc omm

un ic a do a t D e tr oit

po lic e he a dq

ua rt e rs wi tho ut a

ny pr ob a ble c a us e de te rm inatio n. R. 13 at 41, 43. During that time, police interrog ated Eva ns on four sepa

rate occa sions. See R. 13 atNo. 07-2029

Evans v. B ooker

- 2 - 6-7 , 1 1 , 2 0 , 2 9
. Po li c e in f o r me d E v an s o f h is Co n s ti tuti o n a l r ig h ts p r io r to e a c h in te r

r o g a ti on session , an d E v an s s ig n e d an d in it ia le d mu lt ip le “ Co n s ti tuti o n a l Ri g h ts Ce rti f ic a te [s ] of N o ti f ic a ti o n .” S

ee R. 13 at 6, 11, 21, 28-30. Substantial periods of time passed be tween e ach interrog ation session, and ea ch session wa s appar ently relatively brief. See R. 13 at 6-7, 11-12, 18- 20, 28-30, 32. At t he four th interrog ation session, more than 85 hour s after his arre st, Evans confe ssed to murderingKirk De Be rry on L appin Street in De troit. See R. 13 at 49. Ev ans wa s arr a ig ne d o n M arc h 6 , 2 00 1. R. 1 3 at 41 . Pr ior to t ri a l, t he Way ne County

Cir c uit Co u rt h e ld a h e ar in g p u r s u ant to P eo ple v. W alker , 132 N.W.2d 87 (Mich. 1965), at whic h Evans claimed that his confession was involuntary beca use he w as denie d counsel, he ld incommunicado f o r mo r e th an8 5 h o u r s , h a d tr o u b le s le e p in g d

u r in g h is d e te n ti o n , an d

w a s s u b je c t t o r e peate d questioning. After hear ing the testimony of Evans and the police off icer s who questioned him, the court de termined that Evans’s confe ssion was voluntary and admissible. R. 13 at 53. On January 3, 2002, a Way

ne County

Circuit Court jury

con v i ct ed E v ans of second-de g ree murder. T he trial court a lso convicted Eva

ns of beinga felon in posse ssion of a firea rm. The c ourt sentenc ed Eva ns to 40 to 60 months in prison for the f irea rm conviction and 65 to 120 y ear s in pr ison f or the murder conviction. Evans appe aled his convic tion to the M ichig an Court of Appe als. See P eople v . Evans , No. 2 4 0 3 5 7 , 2 0 0 4 W L547232 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 18, 2004) . That cour t found the dela

y betwee n Ev a ns ’s a rres t an d h is pro bab le c aus e det erm in ati on un reas on abl e, b ut it con clude d th a t un re a so na ble delay alone did not rende r a confe ssion inadmissible under state and federa l law. Id. at *2. Rather, under People v . Cipriano , 4 29 N. W.2 d 78 1, 79 0 ( Mic h. 19 88 ), un re a so na ble de lay wa s a fa c tor toNo. 07-2029

Evans v. B ooker

- 3 - be conside red in de termining whether a conf ession was voluntary . The court then revie wed the tr ial
c o u rt ’ s d e t e r

m i n a t i o nt h a tE v an s ’ s c o n f e s s i o nw a s v o l u n t ar

y: [A] lthough we do not approve of such an unreasonable delay , we c onclude that the tr ia l c ourt

did no t c le arl y

e rr in f ind ingthat de fe nd ant v olun tari ly pr ov ide d h is statement to the police. In holding that de fenda nt’s statement wa s voluntary , the trial court a cce pted the wor d of the off icer s who testified that def endant d i d not ask for a lawy e r a nd that th e y a dv ise d d e fe nd ant o f h is Miranda rig hts. The trial cour t found defe ndant’s testimony

to lack cr edibility . We are no t l ef t wi th a def

inite and firm c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u rt e r r e d i n a l l o w i n g t h e d e f

e n d an t ’ s s t a t e me nt i nto e vid e nc e . Ind e e d, po lic e of fi c e rs te sti fi e d th a t th e y a dv ise d d e fe ndant o f h is constitutional rights bef

ore que stioning him, that defe ndant re ad the co n stitut ional rig hts form and initialed by eac h number a

nd s i gn ed the form, that de fenda nt acknow ledg ed under standing those rig hts, was coope rative, a nd did not appear

under the influenc e of a lcohol or drug s. Furthe r police te stimony indicated that de fenda

nt did not ask to speak to a lawy er, was alert, not sleepy , did not complain about being tired, wa s eig htee n o r n i n et een y ear s old and had ha d previous conta cts with the police, including arr ests. There was a lso testimony con ce rn i n g the delay

in the arr aig nment. There is no evidence that the police subjected defe ndant to continuous or prolonged interrog ation or i ntimidating police c onduct during the detention, nor is the re any indication in the rec ord of phy sical abuse or threats of phy s i ca l abuse. Def endant testified that he was twe nty -one y ear s old, and while deta ined he wa s tired beca use he did not g et much slee p due to the conditions wher e he w as deta ined. He testified that he asked for an attorney on more than one occa sion. Defendant a d m i t t e d t h a tt h e p o l i c e a d v i s e d

h i m o f h i s Miranda ri g hts, that he could re ad and write, that his i nitials and si g nature wer e on the pr offe red doc uments, and stated that he just “said any

thing” so he could g o home. Th e t ri al court wa s fac ed with a cre dibilit y

contest an d deter

mined that the police testimony was more cre dible. I ssu e s of cr e dib ili ty sh ou ld be le ft to t he tr ia l c ourt , w hic h h a s a su pe ri or op po rt un ity to ev a luate ma tte rs of c re dib ili ty
. Gi ve n this re c or d, and havin g e xami ne d th e tot a lity of the c ircums t an ces surrounding defe ndant’s stateme nt, we conc lude that the trial c o u rtd i d n o tc l e ar l y e r

r i nd e t e r m i n i n g t h a td e f

e n d an t ’ s s t a t e m e n tw a s v o l u n t ar y. E vans , 2004 WL 547232, at *2 (footnotes a nd citations omitt ed). The Michig an Supreme Court denied Eva

ns’s reque st for leave to appeal. People v . Evans , 688 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 2004) (table );

se e als o People v . Evans , 692 N.W.2d 841 (Mich. 2005) (deny ing Evans’s reque st a g ain after
rec onsideration).No. 07-2029

Evans v. B ooker

- 4 - Evans then f

iled this action in the United States District Court fo r the Easter n District of Michig an, see king a

writ of h ab ea s corpus. See E vans v. Book

er , N o . 0 5
- c v - 7 4 1 3 0

- d t, 2 0 0 7 WL 2225885 (E.D. Mich. Aug
. 1, 2007). The district c ourt denied Evans ’s petition, see ibi d ., bu t it g rante d Evans a c ertifica te of a ppeala bility with respec t to his claim that his con fe s s i on was involuntary . R. 35. Evans filed a timely appea l on the issue cer

tified. II On appe al, Evans onc e more asser ts that his confession was i n v o l u n tary and that the Mic hig an Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls unr e a so na

bly a pp lie d f e de ra l la w w he n it c on c lud e d o the rw ise . T his court revie ws a district c ourt’s dismiss al of a petition broug ht pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 de novo , but it reviews the district cour t’s fac tual finding s for c lear err or. Tho mp so n v . B e ll , 580 F.3d 423, 43 3 ( 6th Cir . 2 00 9). Und er § 2 25 4( d) , a fe de ra l c ourt

may no t g ra nt a wr it o f h a

be a s c or pu s w ith
re sp e c t to any

c la im that w a s a dju dic a te d o n th e me ri ts i n state c ourt un le ss a dju dic a tio n o f t he c la im (1 ) “ re su lte d in

a de c isi on that w a s c on tr ary to, or

inv olv e d a

n unr e a so na

ble a pp lic a tio n o f, c le arl y established F eder al law, a s deter mined by the Supreme Court of the United States” or ( 2) “r esulted in a dec ision that was based on a n unrea sonable de termination of the f acts in lig ht of the evide nce prese nted in the State cour t proce eding .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). When, as in this case , a prisoner seeks a writ on the g rounds that the state court unrea sonably applied cle arly

established fe dera l law, a fe dera l court will issue a writ of ha beas c orpus if the state court identified the cor rec t gove rning leg al principle f

rom the S upreme Court’s decisions, but unrea sonably applied that princ iple to the fac ts of the prisoner ’s ca se. See W illiams v. Taylor , 529 U.S. 362, 412-13 (2000) . The fe dera l courtNo. 07-2029

Evans v. B ooker

- 5 - will not gra

nt the writ unless the state c ourt’s application of Supreme Court pre cedent was “objec tively

unrea sonable,” rathe r than mer ely incorre ct. Se e id . at 409-10. When review ing a

state cour

t decis i on, a fe dera l habea s court must treat the state cour t’s fa c tua l f ind ing s a s p re su mpt ive ly

c or re c t. 2 8 U .S. C. § 22 54 (e )( 1) . Ape tit ion e r may ov e rc ome thi s presumption only

by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. I b id

. Al t houg h the voluntariness of a confe ssion is a lega l question that falls out side the s cope of the § 2254(e )(1) presumption, Miller v. Fenton , 474 U. S. 104 , 115 (1 98 5) , s ub sid iary fa c tua l qu e sti on s, inc lud inga state c ourt ’s c re dib ili ty deter minations at a suppression hear ing, are entitled to the § 2254(e) (1) pr esumption. Se e id . at 112; Ra mo ne z v . B e rg hu is , 490 F.3d 482, 490 ( 6th Cir. 2007). I n th e pr e se nt cas e, th e Mic hig an Co ur t of Ap pe a ls d id n ot u

nr e a so na bly a pp ly c le arl y
e sta bli sh e d f e de ra l la w. Un de r c ur

re nt S up re me Court jur isp ru de nc e , a c on fe ssi on

is i na dmi ssi ble if obtained throug h means incompatible with due proce ss. Miller , 474 U. S. at 11 0. Th e ult imate te st of whe ther a

confe ssion accor ds with due proce s s i s “t h e t est of voluntariness.” Columbe v. C o n n ecticut , 3 6 7 U
. S
. 5 6 8 , 6 0 2 ( 1 9 6 1 )

. T h e qu e s t i o n i n e a c h c a s e i s “ w h e t h e r a d e f e n d an t ’ s w ill
was ove rborne at the time he c onfesse d.” Re c k v . P ate , 367 U.S. 433, 440 (1961). To de ter m ine whether a def endant’ s will was overbor ne, a c ourt must ex amine “the totality of all the surr ounding circ umstances–both the char acte ristics of the acc used and the details o f t h e int err og ation.” Sc hn e c k lot h v . B us tam on te , 412 U.S. 218, 226 (1973). Relevant fac tors include: (1) the dur ation and conditions of detention; (2) the r epea ted and pr olonge d natu re o f t h e questioning ; (3) the use of ph y sic a l pu

nis hme nt; (4 ) t

he de fe nd ant’ s p hy sic a l and me nta l sta te ; (5) the y ou th o f t he de fe nd ant; (6) the de fendan t ’s l ack of education or low intelligenc e; and ( 7) the lac k of any advice to theNo. 07-2029

Evans v. B ooker

- 6 - d e f e n d an t o n h is c o n s ti tuti o n a l rig hts. See W ithrow v. W

illiams , 507 U.S. 680, 693-94 (1993); Bu sta mo nte , 4 12 U. S. at 22 6; Columbe , 367 U.S. at 602. The Michig an Court of Appea ls c orre ctly identified these princ iples when it quoted Pe op le v. Cipriano , see Ev ans , 2004 WL 547232, at *1, which thoroug hly examined Supreme Court pr e c e de nt and se t fo rt

h the a pp ro pr ia te te st and fa c tor s fo r d e te rm ini ngvo lun tari ne ss, see Cipriano , 429 N.W.2d at 790. The Michigan court t hen properly applied these principles by examining all of the circ umstances surr ounding E vans’s c onfession to deter mine whether

his will was overborne

. See Evans , 2004 WL 547232, at *2. The c ourt observe d that, althoug h Evans was held for ove r 85 hours wi tho ut a rr a ig nme nt, the po lic e re pe a te dly adv ise d E va ns of his ri g hts , d id n ot s ub

je c t hi m to continuous or prolonged inter rog ation, and did not eng ag e in abusive or intimi dating behavior

. Ib id

. Fur ther, the court hig hlighted police testimony that Evans wa s alert a

nd did not complain of fatig ue. Ibid. Finally , t h e court noted that Evans was twe nty -one y ear s old, could rea d and wr ite, and had prior conta ct with t h e p o l i ce , including a rre sts. Ibid. Ba sed on all of these fac tors, the Michig an Court of Appea ls found that Evans’s will was not ove rborne

. Ibid. Although E vans’s e x tended, incommunicado detention is troubling, g iven the deta iled
c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fa c tua l c ir c ums tanc e s a nd le g a l pr inc ipl e s b y

the Mic hig an Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls,
we c ann ot s ay

that th e Mic hig an c ourt ’s a pp lic a tio n o f S up re me Cou rt pr e c e de nt w a s o bje c tiv e ly
unrea sonable. Ac cording ly , the district court prope rly reje cted Eva

ns’s habe as petition. III F or the re a so ns dis c us se d a

bo ve , w e AF F I RM the jud g me nt o f t he dis tr ic t c ourt
.