## 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. 08

- 1695 J IMMIE J OH NS ON, Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v . W I L L I A M P O LLA RD , W ar den, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 2:06- cv-00357- A EG

—A aro n E . G oods tei n, Magis trate Judge

. A RG UE D O CT OB ER 30, 2008

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 24, 2009

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd R IPPLE an d T INDER, C ircu it Judges . R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudge

. Jim m ie Joh n so n w as co n vic te d in W isc on sin st at e c ou rtof re c kle ss h o m icid e, re c kle ss ly e nd an gering safety an d being a fel on in posse ssion ofa fi r ea r m . The t r i alcour t admi tt ed i nt o e vi den ce M r . J o hnson’ s co nfe ssi on. M r. J ohnson cl ai m s th at thi s co nfe ssi on w as the pr oduct ofpol i ce c oe rci on a nd , co nsequentl y, was i na dm i ss ibl e attrial

. Af te runs ucc es sful l y s ee k i ng2 N o. 0 8- 1695

T h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e t h e n u mb e r o ft h e i n t e r v i e w s a n d th e t i me 1 period over w hich they occurre d. M r. J ohnson cl aim s h e w as int ervie w ed five t im es between O ct ober 2 and O ct ober 4. Els e whe r e i n the r e c or d, h e i nd i c a t e d tha th e wa s i nt e r vi ew ed si x t im es i n five days. O ur rev ie w ofthe evidence pres ente d atthe he ar i ng o n M r. J ohn s on’ s m ot i on t o s uppre s s hi s c onfe s s i o n s u g g e s t s th a t Mr
. J o h n s o n p a r t i c i p a t e d i n t wo i n t e r v i e ws on O ctob er2, s ubm i t t ed t o a pol ygr aph ex am i nat i on on the m or ni ng o fOct obe r 3 a nd c onf es s ed t o h i s i nvol vem en ti n the s hoo t i ngs i n an in t er vi ew f ol l owin g the pol ygr aph ex am i nat i on o n O ct o b er 3. (co n tin u ed ...) re l i efi n the W i sco nsi n cour ts, M r. Johnso n fi l ed a pet i ti on f o r a wr i t o f h ab e a s c o r p u s u n d e r 2 8 U. S
. C
. § 2 25 4. The d ist ric t c ou rtd en ied h is p et itio n an d lat er d en ied h is r e qu e s tf o ra c e r t i fi c a t e o fap pe a l ab i l i t y . We g r a nt e d a cer ti fi cate o fappe ala bi l i ty on the i ssue ofwh ether M r . J o hns o n’ s co nfes si o n was v o l unt ary . F o rthe r ea so ns se t f o r thi n thi s o pi ni o n, w e affi r m the j udg m en t o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I

B AC KGR OUND On S ept embe r2 0, 2 00 0, t wo m enwer e f at al l y i nj ur ed an d thr e e i nd i v i du a l s we r e wo un de d wh e n a gunm an opened fi re o utsi de a M i l w aukee taver n. M r. Johnso n w as im pli cate d i n the shoo ti ngs, and pol i ce a rr est ed hi m o n unrel ate d charg es i n the ear l y m or ni ng hour s o fO cto ber2, 2000
. The pol i ce inter vi ew ed M r. J ohnson on m ult i ple occa si ons f ol l owing hi s a rr est
. M r. J ohnson i ni t i a l lyde ni ed 1N o. 0 8- 1695 3

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 Specific all y, the rec ord sugg es t s thatM r. J ohnson w as arres ted on O ct ober 2, 2000, at 4: 25 a. m . R.35 at12. At that t im e, h e was not cons idered a s uspect in the s hootings, but h e h ad b een id en tifi e d a s a p o te n tia l w itn es s. Id. at 14- 15. Tw o detect ives qu estio n ed M r. J oh nso n a b ou t the sho otin g s fro m ap p ro xim ately 6:00 a. m . u ntil ap p ro xim ately 8:00 a.m
. on the d ay of his a rr es t. Id. at 15
. M r. J oh nso n w as no t inform e d of his M i ra nda ri g h ts d u ri n g th a t in te rv ie w . Id
. at 14. Later that e vening, M r. Jo h n so n re q u es te d a se co n d in te rv ie w . Id. at42. M r. J ohn s on w as infor m ed of his M i ra nda ri ghts at the beginning ofthat in te rv ie w . Id. at36

- 38
. Duri ng the i nt er vi ew, whi c h l as t ed fro m appr ox i m at el y 9 :0 0 p. m . unt i l 2: 47a. m . , the i nt er ro gat i ng o ffice rs al lo w ed M r. Jo h n so n to ta k e si x b re a k s. Id. at 34, 44, 47. O n O ct ober 3, M r. J ohnson subm it ted t o a polygrap h exam inatio n . Id. at 86. T he ex am inat ion l ast ed f rom app roxi m atel y 11: 15 a .m . u n til 2:5 8 p .m . Id. a t8 7, 9 8
. A tth e b e g i n n i n g o fth e e x a mina tion , M r. J oh nso n w as infor m ed o f his M i ra nda r i ght s an d sp ecifically ack no w led g ed tha t he w as aw are tha t he co u ld call a n at to rn ey at a n y p o i n t d u ri n g th e e xa m in a tio n . Id
. at 90- 94. A t the concl usi on of the exam inat ion, M r. J ohnson w as adv is ed th a t th e t e s t w a s c o mp l e t e a n d w a s mo v e d t o a n o th e r r o o m. Id. at 97- 99. Lat erthate ven i ng, M r. J ohn s on was i nt er vi ewed by Li eut en a n tJ e s s u p a n d D e t e c t i v e H e i e r . T h e i n t e r v i e w b e g a n a t6 : 2 4 p . m. R .36 at 28
. A t the b eg inn ing o f the in terv iew , M r. Joh nso n a g ain w as infor m ed of his M i ra nda rig h ts. Id. a t 25- 26. Shortl y after th e intervie w began, M r. J ohnson adm it ted that hi s earl ie r s t at em en t s wer e f al s e an d confes s ed t o fi ring a gun i nt o the cr o w d o n th e n ig h t in qu es tio n . Id. at 3 3 -3 5, 46-49
. A t ap p ro xim atel y 7: 00 p. m . , afterhe adm it ted t o fir ing a weap on, M r. Jo h n so n w a s p la ce d u n d er ar re st fo r h o m ic id e. Id. at 35
. Li eut en - (co n tin u ed ...)4 N o. 0 8- 1695

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 antJ es s up i ndi c at ed that, thr ougho ut the i nt er vi ew, M r. J ohn s on appe ar ed c oope ra t i ve and willin g t o di s c us s hi s i nvol vem en t in th e i n ci d en t. Id. at 25. LieutenantJ es sup a lso s tat ed that M r. Jo h n so n n e v e r a p p ea re d re lu ct a n t to an sw er qu es tio n s. Id. at 30 -31. D u ring the in terv iew , M r. J oh nso n w as p erm itted to use the re st room and w as give n a c hees eburg er, french fri es a n d a so d a . Id. at 30 -3 2
. T h e i n te rv ie w en d ed at 9:0 8 p .m . Id. at 41. Th e rec ord s ug ge s t s tha tMr. J oh ns onf a i l e d the po l yg r a ph 2 e x a m i na t i on . Howe ve r , the pa r t i e s di s pu t e whe the r De t e c t i ve H ei erha d ac t ual kno w led g e ofthe r es ul t s ofthe e xa m i nat i on at the tim e he m ad e the statem en t. any invol vem ent in the sh oo ti ngs a nd ag re ed to ta ke a pol ygr aph test, wh i ch w as adm i ni ste re d on Octobe r 3, 2 0 0 0
. Atthe c o ncl us i o n o fthe t e s t, Mr
. J o hn s o n s i g ne d a st at ementi ndi ca tingthe f o l l ow ing: ( 1) he kno wi ng l y a nd i nt e l l i g e nt l y h a d wa i v e d h i s r i g ht s du r i ngthe e xa m i nation; (2) his state m en ts d uring th e ex am inat io n w ere m ade wil l i ngl y; and ( 3) he unders too d that the exam i nati on w as ove r and that any questi ons that th e poli ce m i ght a sk and any ans w er s that h e m ight gi ve fro m that p o i n tf o r w a r d w o u l d n o tb e p a r to fth e p o l y g r a p h e x a mi na ti o n. Appro xi m at ely thr ee ho ur s afte rthe e xa m i na ti o n c o ncl ud ed, M r. J ohnson w as re ad hi s M i randa r i g ht s an d i nter vi ew ed by the p ol i ce. D uri ng the inter vi ew , Detect i ve He i e rma de the f o l l o wi ng s t a t e men t : “ I t ’ s my un de r s t a nd

ing you m us t h a v e f ail ed that polygrap h be cau se you ’re sti l lh er e.” R. 37 at 34. The o ffi cer s m ade no othe r

2 r emar k s ab o utthe results o fthe po l y g r aphe xa m i na ti o n.N o. 0 8- 1695 5

T he o n l y fed era l case cited b y M r. J oh nso n w as Wat t s v. 3 India na , 338 U.S
. 49, 51 ( 1949) ( plurali ty opinion) , w hich he re li ed on f or the p ro p osition tha t, alth ou g h fe d e r a l cou rts ord ina rily s houl d he s i t at e befor e ove rtu rn i ng a s t at e c our t ’ s fi ndi ng o f f act, the y m ay independ entl y d ete rm ine the const itutional im p or t of those f acts. H e the n state d tha t the C ou rt of A p p eals ofW is consi n re v ie w s the tr ial court’ s f actual findings for cl ear error, and its cons ti tuti onal findings de novo. R. 6, Ex. I at 43- 44. In h is a n a ly sis , M r. Jo h n so n cit ed six W i s co n sin ca se s: S tate v . Dean , 3 0 7N. W
. 2 d 6 2 8 ( W i s . 1 9 8 1 ) ( c i t e d f o r th e p r o p o s i t i on tha t po lyg rap h tests are inad m issible in cr im ina l pr oce ed ing s, R .6, E x. I a t 4 4 ); S tat e v. S chlise, 271 N
. W
. 2d 619 ( W is
. 1978) ( ci ted (co n tin u ed ...) Foll ow ing the statem en t by D etec tive H eier, M r. J ohn son ’s demea no rc ha ng ed, a nd he c o nfes se d t o hi s i nv olvem en t i n the shoo ti ng. H e s ubseque n tly was convi cted bya M i l w aukee County jur y oftwo co unts o fr eckl ess hom i ci de, thr ee counts ofr eckl ess l y e nd anger i ng sa fety a n d o n e c o u n to fb e i n ga fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o fa fi r e a r m. M r. J ohnson appeal ed hi s co nvi ctio n to the Court of A pp eal s ofW i sco nsi n, cl ai m i ng tha t hi s “ confess i on w as coe rce d in vi ol ati on o fthe Fi fth A m endm ent when C ity of M ilw au ke e p olic e d et ec t i v e s ov er c am e [h is] w ill b y u se of th e p oly gr ap h ex am in a t i on p ro c es s.” R .6, E x . I at 43. D es p ite fra m i ng the i ssue on a pp eali n federa l const i tuti onal te rm s, M r. J ohnson’ s br i efnei ther r e l i e d u po n fe de r a lc a s e l aw di s c us s i ngthe F i fth Am e nd

m ent no r speci fica ll y r efer enced tho se port i ons ofW i sco ns i n c as es tha t address ed th e vo l unt ar i ne ss i ss ue i n t er m s o ffede r alc o ns ti tu ti o na l l aw; the pr i m ary c o nt en 36 N o. 0 8- 1695

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 f orthe pr op os i t i on that po s t
- po l yg r a phs t a t e m e nt s m a y be a dm i s s ibl e i ft ot a l l y di s c ret e fr om the pr e c e di ngpo l yg r a ph ex a m in a tio n, R .6, E x. I a t 4 4 ); Sta t e v. Johnso n , 5 3 5 N. W
. 2 d 4 41 ( W i s . 19 95 ) ( ut i l i ze d t o s etouta thr ee - part in qui ry r eg ar di ng when a po s t
- pol ygr aph s t at em en ti s c ons i der ed di s c re t e f ro m a p o ly g ra p h ex a m in a tio n, R .6, E x . I a t 4 4 -4 5 ); Tu rn er v . S tate, 250 N
. W
. 2d 706 ( W is
. 1977) ( noted f o r the propo si ti on that the Sup rem e Court ofW is consi n has found a s ix

- day i nter val betweena pol ygr aph ex am i nat i on and a s u b seque nts t at em en t s u ffi c i e n tt o r e n de r th e s t a t e me n td i s c r e t e fr o m t h e p o l y g r aph, R .6, E x. I a t 4 5 -4 6 ); B ar rera v. S tate, 298 N
. W .2d 820 (W is
. 1980) ( re fer re d t o i n s uppor tofM r. J ohn s on’ s c l aim th at c onfro nt i ng a d efend an t w i th test resu lts cou ld b e so p sych olo g ically co er ci v e a s to re q u ir e su p p re ssi o n, R .6, E x. I a t 4 6 ); M cA doo v . S tate, 22 3 N. W
. 2d 5 21 ( W i s . 19 74 ) ( c i t ed i n r efer en c e t o o ne ofs eve ra l f ac t or s thata c our tm ay c on s i der i n de t er m i ni ng w hetherto all ow the adm is si on o f a p ost
- polyg raph st atem en t, R .6, E x. I a t 4 6 ). O fthe cas es cite d in M r. Johnson’ s brief, two case s

— D ea n , 307 N. W
. 2 d 6 2 8 , a nd Johnso n , 5 3 5 N. W
. 2 d 441

— d o n ot d iscuss whethe r the c onfes s i ons ati s s ue were vol unt ar y. The r em ai ni ng c as es do a ddre s s the vol unt ar i ne s s i s s ue, butthe i r di s c us s i on offede ra l c as e l aw i s l i m i t ed. I n Tu rner, 250 N
. W
. 2d at 715- 17, the Su p rem e C ou rt of W iscon sin r e lied solely on state law in det er m i ni ng whe the r the defen dant ’ s c onfes s i on was vol unt ar y. I n B arrera , 29 8 N .W .2 d a t 2 91 -93, the cou rt ind irectly referenc ed federal l aw i n it s tot ali ty- of

- the- ci rcum st ances a n a l y s i s . I n S c h l ise, 2 7 1 N. W
. 2 d a t6 2 6

- 3 0 , a nd M cA doo , 223 N
. W
. 2d a t52 6- 27, the c our tr efer red t o fede ra l c as e l aw, but p rim arily relied on state case law in its ana lyses. (co n tin u ed ...)N o. 0 8- 1695 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 M r. J ohnson argued , based on the abo ve-c it ed case s, that “[ t ] he det er m i nat i on of whethe r a pos t
- pol ygr aph s t at em en tis sufficiently d iscrete from the p oly g rap h ex am ina tion an d , thu s, adm i s s ibl e m us tb e m ade af t era c ar eful refer en c e t o . . . al l ofthe rel e va nt f a c t or s a nd the t ot a l i t y of the c i r c ums t a nc e s ofan ind iv id u al case.” R .6, E x. I at 47
. H e the n asserted tha t his c onfes s i on, whic h was m ade duri ng the i nt er vi ew f oll owin g his poly g ra p h ex am inat ion, s hould be s up press ed. H e c lai m ed thatDet ec t i ve Durbi s i ni t i al l y pr opos ed thathe t ake the pol ygraph ex am inat ion. R.6, Ex. I at 48. H e al so s tat ed that he “w as unaw a re that hi s int ervie w . . . on O ct ober 3, 2000 was not an ext ensi on of the pol y g ra p h proces s. ” Id. H e further contended thatDet ec t i ve H ei er ’ s s t at em en tabo utthe r es ul t s ofthe pol ygr aph was i nt en ded t o o ver c om e hi s wil l aft ert wo days of in te rr o g a tio n . Id. M r . John son claim ed tha t, g iv en his na iv ete 

### 3 a nd l a c k ofe duc a t i on, De t e c t i ve Har gr ov e ’ s a t t e m pt t o de s c r ibe the pol ygraph ex am i nat i on pro c es s an d “s ani t i ze i tfro m the pol i c e i nt er ro gat i on pro c es s ” was insuffi c i en tt o n eg at e the co er ci v e effec t of D et ec tiv e H ei er ’s st a t e m en ts. Id. at 49. Theref or e, he argue d, be c aus e the pol i c e di d notat t em ptt o m ake hi m a war e tha tthe i nt e r r og a t i onf ol l owi ngthe po l yg r a ph ex am i nat i on w as no ts i m pl y a nothe r phas e ofthe e xa m i nat i on, and bec aus e the y r efer en c ed the r es ul t s ofthe e xa m i nat i on du ri ng that i nte r vi e w, the inter view and the polygraph ex am inat i ons hould be c on s i de r e d a s i ng l e e ve nttha tm us tbe s up pr e s s e d. ti o n in h i s br i efwas tha t th e po l ygrap h ex ami na ti o n a nd the i nt e r v i e w f o l l o wi ngthe e xa mi na t i o n c o ns t i tu t e d a sing l e ev en t, a nd, a s su ch, a ny s ta te m en ts made dur i ng the e xam i nati on a nd the i nter vi ew were i nadm i ssibl e. The Court of A pp eal s o fW i sco nsi n hel d that the post

-8 N o. 0 8- 1695 p oly gr ap h int er vie w w as d i s tin c t b ot h in t im e a n d in l oca ti on fro m the pol ygr aph exam i nati on. The ap pel l ate co ur t th er efore affi r m ed M r . J o hns o n’ s co nv i ct i o n, a nd th e S u p rem e C ou rt of W iscons in d en ied M r. J ohn son ’s p e t i t i o n f o rd i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w. A fterunsuccess fully c ha l l engi ng hi s co nvi cti on o n appe a l, Mr
. J o hn s o n s o ughtc o l l a t e r a lp o s t
- c o nv i c t i on re l i efi n the W i sco nsi n sta te cour ts. The tr i alco urt denie d re l i efand the judgm ent was affi rm ed by the Cour t o f A p p ea ls of W isc on sin . Th e Su p re m e C ou r t of W isc on sin d e n i e d r e v i e w. M r . J o hns o n fi l ed th i s habe as c o r p us pet i ti o n in the U nite d Sta tes Dis tr i ct Cour t forthe Eastern Dis tr i ct o f W i sc o ns i n. The di st r i ctc o ur t r ej ec te d hi s peti ti o n a nd denie d his r equest f ora cer ti fi cate o fap p eal abi l i ty. W e g ra nted hi s r equest f or a cer ti fi cate o fappeal abi l i ty on the questi on o fw hetherh i s confess i on was i nvol untary
.
II DI S C US S I ON Th i s a pp e a lp r e s e nt s t wo i s s ue s : F i r s t, the S t a t e c o nt e nd s th at w e are p reclud ed from review ing M r . Joh ns on’s fede r alc o ns ti tu ti o na lc l ai m b ecause he di d no t pr es en t tha tc l a i m i n the s t a t e - c o ur tp r o c e e di ng s . S e con d, M r. Joh n so n arg u es th at th e s ta te co u rt v iola te d h is Fi fth A m endm ent r i ghts by adm i tting the co nfe ssi on in to ev id en c e.N o. 0 8- 1695 9

S ee al so B al dw i n v. R ees e, 54 1 U. S. 27, 29 ( 20 04 ) ( “Be f or e s ee ki ng 4 a fed era l w rit of ha b eas corp u s, a s tate priso ne r m u st e x ha u st a v a ila b le sta te re m ed ie s . . . .”); M a lo n e v . Wa lls , 538 F. 3d 744, 753 (7 th C ir . 20 0 8 ). A. T h e St at e s u b m its th at M r. Joh n so n failed to p re se n t h is Fi fth A m endm en t c lai m to the W i sco nsi n cour ts. In i ts vi ew, the r efo r e, we ar e pr ec l ude d fr o m c o ns i der i ngthe m er i t s o f M r . J o hn s o n’ s pe t i t i o n. “ W he the r a pa r t y has pr o c e du r a l l y de f a ul t e d hi s c l a i m i s a qu e s t i o n o f l aw that w e r evi ew de nov o. ” M alone v. Walls , 53 8 F .3d 7 44, 75 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng Lieberm an v. Thom as , 50 5 F
. 3d 665, 670 (7th Cir. 2007)). Ou ra u th o r i t y t o g r a n ta p e t i t i o n i s l i mi t e d b y 2 8 U
. S
. C. § 2254 (b), w hic h p r ovide s tha t “[a]n ap p li cation f or a wri t o fhabe as c o r pus . . . s ha l lno t be g r an te d unl es s . . . the appl i ca ntha s ex ha us te d the r emed ies a va i l ab l e i n the cour ts ofthe St ate
. ” I m pli ci t in the exhausti on r equi re 4 m en t is th e related cond iti on w hich requ ires p etitioners to “ f a irly p re se n [t] fe d er al c laim s t o th e s ta te co u rt s in or der to giv e the S tat e the o pp or tuni ty to pass upon and cor re ct a l l ege d vi ol ati ons ofi ts pri sone rs ’ federa l ri ghts. ” D un ca n v . Henry, 513 U.S
. 36 4, 36 5 ( 1995 ) ( al ter ati on inorig in al) (c ita tio n s a n d qu ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ); see a lso O ’Su lliv a n v . B o e rck el , 52 6 U.S
. 83 8, 84 5, 84 8 ( 1999 ) ( “To .
. . pro tectthe i ntegr ity ofthe federa lexhausti on rule, w e a sk not onl y whether a pri sone r has e xhausted sta te re m edi es, but al so w hetherh e has proper lye xh au st ed th os e re m ed ies , i.e. , wh etherhe ha s f ai rly pr e-10 N o. 0 8- 1695

S ee a lso B a l d w in , 54 1 U .S. at 29 ( “[a] priso ne r m u st f airly 5 pre s en thi s c l ai m in ea c h a ppro pri at e s t at e c our t ” ( c i t at i ons an d q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed )); L ew is v. S te rnes , 390 F. 3d 1019, 1025 (7 th C ir . 20 0 4 ). se nt ed hi s cl ai m s to the s ta te c o ur ts
. ” ( ci ta ti o ns a nd q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed )); Hough v. Ande rs on , 272 F. 3d 878, 89 2 ( 7th Ci r. 20 01)
. In ord er to sa ti sfy thi s r equi re m ent, a peti ti onerm ust fa i rl y prese nt his federa lcla i m s a t each l eve lo fthe sta te’ s e stabl i shed re vi ew pro ces s. See Woodf or d v. Ngo , 54 8 U.S
. 81 , 92 ( 2006 ) ( noting tha t “ [ a] sta te pri sone r i s g ener allybar re d fr om o btaini ng federa l habeas r el i efunl ess the pri sone r has pro perl y pr ese nted hi s o r he r cl ai m s th r o ugh o ne co m pl et e r o und of th e S ta te ’ s es tabl i sh ed appe l late r ev i ew pr o ce ss ” ( ci ta ti o ns a n d q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) )
. F a i l u r e t o d o so c o n- 5 sti tutes pro ceduraldef aul t that pr ecl ud es re vi ew by fed er al c ou rt s. Se ei d. at92 ( “the sancti on forf ai l i ng to exhaust pr oper l y ( precl usi on o fr evi ew in federa lco urt) is giv en th e s ep ar at e n am e o f p ro c e d u ra l d efa u lt” ); Lewis v. Stern es , 390 F.3d 101 9, 1025 -26 (7th C ir. 2004). H ow ev er , w e n ee d n otad d re ss th e p ro c ed u ra l d efa u lt iss ue r ai sed bythe St ate bec ause M r. J ohnson’ s cl aim c lea rly fails on th e m er its
. See28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (b )(2) ; see, e . g. , Bel l v. Cone, 54 3 U. S
. 4 47, 4 51 , 4 51 n. 3 ( 20 05 ) ( dec l i ni ng to add re ss w hetherthe cour t o fappeal s cor re ctl y hel d that th e pet i ti one r ha d no t def au l te d o n h i s cl ai m a nd c i ting 28 U
. S. C. § 2254(b) ( 2) f orthe propos i ti on that “ an appli cati on fo rh ab e a s c o r pu s ma y b e de ni e d o n the me r i ts, notwiths tandi ng a peti ti on er ’ s f ai l ure to exhaust in sta te c ou rt ”); La m brix v. Sin gleta ry, 520 U
. S. 51 8, 52 5 ( 1997 )N o. 0 8- 1695 11

Citat ion t o Sup rem e C ourt au thori ty b y a stat e court is not an 6 es se nti al ingredientofres olving a federal const itutional i ss ue. (co n tin u ed ...) ( ackno w l edgi ng tha t a federa l c ou rt m ay deny a peti ti on f orhabea s co rpus o n the m er i ts w i thout re sol vi ng wh ether th e is su e w as p re se n te d fairly to th e s ta te co u rt s).

B. M r . J o hns o n mai nt ains tha t th e admi ss ion ofhi s co nfes si o n v i o l at ed his Fi fthAm en dm en t r i g ht s be ca us e th e con fession w as involun tary. O rd inarily , o u r review of a h ab ea s p et itio n is go ve rn ed b y t h e s ta n d ar d s s etfort h in the Antit er ro ri sm and Effecti ve Death Penal ty A ct ( “A ED PA ”) , 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254, wh i ch pro vi des that ha beas rel ief shal lnotbe gr anted with re spect to any c l ai m thatwas adj ud i cate d o n the m er i ts i n St ate cour t p ro ceedi ngs u n les s t h e a dj u d ica tio n of th e c laim

— ( 1) r esul ted i n a d ec ision that w as contr ar y t o, o r in vo lve d an u n re as on ab le a p p lica tio n of, cle ar ly es tabl i sh ed F ede r all aw , as de te r m i ne d b y the Suprem e Cour t o fthe U ni ted S tat es; o r ( 2) r esul ted i n a deci si on that w as base d on an unreas onabl e dete rm i nati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o f the e v i de nc e p r e s e nt e d in the S t a t e c o ur tp r o c e e di ng. 28 U. S
. C. § 22 54 ( d)

. H er e, the Co ur t o fAppea l s o fW i sc o nsi n, wh i l e i t di d not r el y e xpli ci tl y o n fede ra lautho ri ty, 612 N o. 0 8- 1695

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 M itch el l v. Esparza , 54 0 U .S. 1 2 , 16 (20 0 4 ) (p er cu ri a m ); Ea r ly v. P acker, 53 7U .S. 3 , 8 (2 0 0 2 ) (p er cu ri a m ). O ur previous opinions have equated thi s st atutory s tand ard 7 w i t h su b sta n tiv e d e n o v o re v ie w , C arl son v . Je ss , 5 2 6 F
. 3 d 1018, 1 0 2 4 (7t h C ir . 20 0 8 ), an d p le n a ry re v ie w , see, e.g ., H ar ri so n v. M cBri de, 42 8 F .3d 6 52 , 66 5, 668 -70 (7th C ir. 20 05 ) (eng ag ing in a r evi ew ofthe f ac ts surr oundi ng the pe t i t i one r’ s t ri al an d c onc l udi ng thatthe p eti t i one r “di d notr ec ei ve a t ri al by a j ud ge free f rom bias , ” i d. at 67 0 ). ap p ea rs to h av e re so lve d t h e fed er al iss u e o f th e v olu n ta rin e s s o f th e c o n fe s s i o n o n th e me r i t s . T h e r e f o r e , th e a pp lica b le s ta n d ar d of re vie w i s t h e on e c on ta in ed in s e c t i o n 2 2 5 4 ( d)

. Und e rtha ts t a nd a r d, A state-cou rt de cision i s con trary to this C o u r t ’s cl ear l y e stabl i shed prece dents i fi t a pp l i es a r ule that contr adic ts the g ove rni ng l aw se t for th i n ourcas es, o r i fi t con fronts a s eto ff ac ts tha t i s m at er i al l y i ndi st i ngu ish able fro m a deci si on o fthi s Courtbut re aches a differ ent re sul t. A sta te- cour t deci si on i nvol ves an unreas onabl e a pp l i cati on o f thi s Court ’ s cl ear l y e stablish ed p re c ed en ts if th e s ta te co u rtap p lies th is Court’ s prece dents to the f acts i n an o bj ecti vel y unre aso n ab le m an n er . Brown v. Payt on , 5 44 U. S
. 1 33 , 1 41 ( 20 05) (ci ta ti o ns a nd qu o t a t i o n mar k s o mi t t ed)

. Ho we v e r, we h a s t e n t o a dd th at, i fthe W i sc o ns i n co ur t di d no t r ea chthe mer i ts o fthe federa lcl ai m and a de novo st anda rd o f r evie w i s a pp ro p ria te , see28 U
. S. C. § 2 24 3, the r es ul t he r e woul d b e th e 7 sam e.N o. 0 8- 1695 13 A confess ion i s involun t a ry w he n it w as given in circu m stan ces th at w ere su ffici en t to overbe ar th e con fessor’s fre e w ill. Lynum n v. Ill inois , 372 U
. S. 5 28, 534 ( 1963 ); see a lso Weidn er v. Thieret, 86 6 F
. 2d 958, 9 63 ( 7th Ci r. 19 89) (“In te rro ga tio n be c om es co n st itu tio n ally ob j ec tio n ab le o nl y whenthe c i r cumst an ce s pr ev en t th e per so n bein g que st i o ne d fr o m m ak i nga r at i o na lc ho i ce . ”)
. W e ex ami ne th e to ta l i ty o f th e ci r cumst an ce s su r r o undi nga co nfess i on t o deter m i ne wh etherthe confess i on i s v ol unt ar y. M i l l e rv . F e nt on , 4 7 4 U .S. 10 4, 11 0, 11 2 (1 98 5); see also Gil b e r t v. M e r ch ant, 488 F.3d 780 , 791 (7th C ir. 2007). T h e r e f o r e , w e mu s td e t e r mi n e wh e t h e rth e c i r c u mst an c es su rro u n d in g M r. Joh n so n ’s c o n fes sio n w ou ld have i nter fer ed w i th hi s “ fre e a nd del iber ate choi ce o f w he th erto co nfe ss. ” Holland v. M cGinnis , 96 3 F
. 2d 1044, 1051 ( 7th Cir
. 1992 ) ( ci tat i ons and quot ati on m ar ks om i tte d)

. Appl y i ngthi s st an dar d, we co nc l ude tha t th e record d oes not su p p ort a fi nd ing th at M r. Jo h n s on’s co nfes si o n was the pr o ducto fpo l i ce c o er ci o n. T he pa rties disagree on both the circ um stan ces su rro und i ng M r. J ohnson’s confess i on a nd the i m pact those ci rcum sta nces had on M r. J ohnson’ s fre e wil l

. M r. J ohnson con ten d s tha t his confess ion w as th e involun tary product o fco er ci ve i nter ro gat i on t actics. S peci fi cal l y, M r. J ohnson poi nts t o tw o al l ege dlyco er ci ve tact i cs that, inh is v iew , w er e d es i g n e d t o ov er c om e h is fre e w ill. Fi rs t, he c l ai m s that Dete cti ve H ei erta unted him by i ndi ca tingtha t he ha d f ai l ed hi s po l y g r aphe xa m i na ti o n. M r. J ohnson subm i ts that, bec ause Detec tiv e H ei erwas u n aw ar e o f th e re su lts of th e p o l y g ra p h atth e t im e, h is sta t e men t c o ul d ha v e ha d no pu r po s e o the r tha n to14 N o. 0 8- 1695 “h um il iate [him ] into incu lpatin g him self. ” A p p ell an t’s Br. 19. S eco nd , M r. J ohnson tak es i ssue w i th the n u m b ero f ti m es that h e w as interr oga ted; he c l ai m s that “ the r epea ted inte r r o g at i o ns de m o ns tr at e[ d]

. . . tha t th e po l i ce woul d no t st o p unt i l[ he ] s ai d tha t he was the shoo ter
. ” Id. a t 2 0. Mr
. J o h n s o n a s s e r t s th a tth e s e t wo tact i cs, ta ken t oge ther, cr eat ed a c oer ci ve envi ro nm ent, o ve r ca m e hi s fr ee wi l l an d ca us ed hi m to g i ve a n inv o l unta r y c o nfes si o n. The St ate subm i ts that nei therD et ecti ve H ei er ’ s s tat em ent no r the fre quent i nter ro gat ion s w er e s o coe rci ve as to re nd erM r. J oh n so n’s co nfe ssi on invol untary
. I t a sse rt s that, atthe ti m e Dete cti ve H ei er m ade the sta tem ent, he kne w tha tMr
. J o hn s o n ha d f a i l e d the p o l y g r a ph te st ; th er efo re , th e s ta te m en t w as n otco er c ive
. See B a rrera v. Young, 79 4 F
. 2d 1 26 4, 12 66, 12 70- 71 ( 7th Ci r. 19 86) ( con c l ud i ng tha t the f act that a pol ygr aph exam i ner accura tel y info rm ed the p et i ti onerabo ut the re sul ts of hi s co - defe nd ant’ s pol ygr aph exam i nati on di d not rend er the p etitioner’s confession i nv olun t a r y). Furth erm or e, the St ate co ntends, ev en i fDetect i ve H ei erdi d not k n o w th e r e s u l t s o fth e p o l y g r a p h e x a mi n a t i o n a tt h e t i me he m ad e the statem en t, th e use of “d ecep tion by an i nt erro ga to r d oe s n otau to m at ica lly in v a lid at e a co n fes sio n .” Sot e l o v. Indi ana St at ePr i s on , 850 F.2d 124 4, 1251 ( 7th Cir. 19 88 )
. The S tate cl ai m s th atDe te ct i ve Hei er ’ s st at ement an d the r epe at ed i nt er r o g at i o ns , whenv i ewed i n l i g ht ofthe f a c t tha t M r . J o hn s o n r e pe a t e dl y wa s r e mi nded of hi s M i r anda ri ghts, were not so coe rci ve as to co m pel M r . J o hns o n t o g i ve a n inv o l unt ary c o nfes si o n.N o. 0 8- 1695 15 W e begin ou r analysis b y evaluat ing D etec tive H eier’ s al l ege dly coe rci ve sta tem ent. M r. J ohnson cl aim s t hat D et ec tiv e H ei e r f a lse ly, or a t le as t u n kn ow in gly , told M r. J ohnson that he had f ai l ed hi s pol yg ra p h exam i nati on. A pp el l ant’ s Br. 19. A s an i ni ti al m att er, w e d oubt th at M r. J ohn son ’s chara cterization of De tect ive H eier’ s state m en t i s co rr ect. A f ai r re adingo fthe sta tem en t

— “I t’ s m y unders tandin g yo u m ust hav e f ai l ed that pol ygr aph because yo u’r e s ti l lher e”

— sh o ws tha t th e sta tem ent was nottantam ount to a cla i m thatM r. J ohnson had fa i l ed the pol ygr aph exam i nati on. Rather, the sta tem ent r efl ecte d the dete cti ve’ s be l i efthat, had M r. J ohnson passed the p oly gr aph exam i nati on, he woul d have be en re l eased . M or eov er, ev en i fwe w er e t o ass um e that Detecti ve H ei erdi d not know the outco m e o fthe pol ygrap h ex am ination an d lied ab ou t the results to M r. J ohns o n, the f a c ttha tthe de t e c t i v e ma de a f a l s e o rmis

l eadi ng st ate m ent duri ng the co urse o fthe in te rrogati on w oul d not, by it self, r ender M r. J ohnson’ s co nfe ssi on in vo lu n ta ry . U nite d States v. Harris , 91 4 F
. 2d 927, 93 3 ( 7th C ir. 19 90 ); Sotel o , 85 0 F
. 2d at 1251
. The f act that an o ffi cer m i sr epres ents the s tr ength ofthe e vi dence ag ai nst a defe nd ant i s insuffi ci ent, st anding al one, to r ender an ot h er w ise vo lu n ta ry co n fes sio n ina d m iss ible

. Hol l and, 96 3 F.2 d at10 51 ; C la nto n v. C o o per, 12 9 F
. 3d 1147, 11 58 ( 10th Ci r . 1 99 7)
. An i nt er r o g at i ng o ffi ce r ’ s m i sr epr es en ta ti o ns ar e nei therdi sposi tive o f nori rr el evantto the questi on o f w he th e r a defen d an t’s statem en t w as volun tary. R ath er, when ani nt er r ogator m ak es a f al se s ta te m en t to a de fen dant, we m ust e val uate the e xten t to wh i ch the m i sr eprese nt at i o n “ [ o ve r ca m e th e defen dan t’ s] wi l lb y di stor ting16 N o. 0 8- 1695

an o ther w i se ra ti onalchoi ce. ” Hol l and, 96 3 F.2d at10 51; s e e, e . g. , Fra z i e rv. Cupp , 3 94 U. S
. 7 31 , 7 39 ( 19 69 ) ( “T he f act that the pol i ce m i sr epres ented the st ate m ents that [the co-d efend an t] had m ad e is, w hile r e levan t, insu ffi ci ent .
. . to m ake thi s o ther w i se vol untaryco n fess i on inad m issible. ”). The m i sr epres entati on a t i ssue i n thi s ca se, i fi t m ay be consi dered a m i sr epres entat i on a t al l, i s no t the ty pe of f al se sta tem ent that would “di st or t[] the al ternati ves am on g w h ich [M r. Jo h n so n w as ] be in g a sk ed to ch oo se .” We i d n er, 8 66 F
. 2d at9 63
. Thi s co nc l us i o n i s co ns i st en t w i th the hol din gs of the S up re m e Cour t a nd o ur s i ste r c irc u its
. S e eL y n u mn , 372 U
. S. at 533- 34 ( concl ud i ng tha t the defendant’s co nfe ssi on was co er c ed w hen the pol i ce i m pl i ed th ats he woul d lose cus to dy o fhe rc hi l dr ena nd he r state fi na nc ialben efi ts ifshe d id n o t coop erate); U nited Sta tes v. Lo pez , 43 7 F
. 3d 1059 , 10 66 (10 th Ci r. 20 06) ( det er m i ni ngtha t th e ag en ts ’ mis r epr es en ta ti o n o fthe ev id en c e a g a in st th e d efe n d an t, co m b in ed w ith th eir prom i se that i fthe defe nd ant co nfe sse d h e w oul d be sente nced to si x yea rs ’ i m pri sonm ent, r atherthan si xty, re n d er ed th e c on fes sio n inv olu n ta ry ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ande rs on , 929 F
. 2d 96 , 9 8, 1 02 ( 2d Ci r . 1 99 1) ( ho l di ng that the a gent’ s s tat em ent that s p eak i ng with a l aw yer w oul d perm an en tl y pr ecl ud e the defendant fro m co oper ating with pol i ce r endered the d efend ant’ s fi rs t co nfes si on inv o l unt ary )
. De te ct i ve Hei er ’ s st at ement re l ate d t o the s t r e ng th o fthe S t a t e ’ s c a s e ; i two ul d n ot ha ve c au sed M r . J o hns o n t o “ co ns i dera ny th i ngb ey o nd hi s o w n bel i ef s r ega rdi ng hi s a c tualgui l t o r i nnocence, hi s m oral s en se o fr i g hta nd wr o ng, a nd hi s j udg m en tN o. 0 8- 1695 17

re ga rd in g t h e . . . evid en c e l i n k i n g h im to th e c rim e.” H ol l and, 9 63 F
. 2d at1 05 1. The S upr eme Co ur t, thi s co urt and our si ste r ci rc u its ro uti nel y hav e hel d that s uch m i sr epres entat i ons ar e insuffi ci ent, in and ofthem sel ves, t o ren d er a c on fes sio n inv olu n ta ry . Se e, e . g. , Fra z ier, 39 4 U. S
. a t 73 7, 7 39 ( f al se s ta te m en t th atthe c o - defen dan t h ad co n fes se d ); Holl and, 96 3 F
. 2d at 1051 ( f al se cl ai m that a wi tn e s s h a d s e e n th e d e fe n d a n t ’ s v e h i c l e a tth e c r i me sc en e); Lucero v. Ker by, 133 F. 3d 1299 , 1311 (1 0th Ci r. 19 98) ( m i sr epres entat i on r ega rdi ng f i nger pri nt ev i dence fou n d in th e vic tim ’ s h om e); Le db e t t e rv. Edward s , 35 F. 3d 1062 , 106 6, 1070 ( 6th Ci r. 19 94) ( f al si fi ed fi nger pri ntc om p ar iso n ch ar t, cla im t h at th re e w itn es se s h ad id en tifi ed defen dan t, a nd st aged vi ct i m i den ti fi ca ti o n)
. In the abs en ce of other elem en ts ind ic a ting th at M r. J ohn son ’s w ill w as ov erb or n e, D e t e c tiv e H eie r’s st at em en t, ev en if f al se , woul d no t ha ve r en der ed M r . J o hns o n’ s co nfess i on invol untary
. W e no w tur n to M r. J ohnson’ s s eco nd co ntenti on: that the f r e qu e nc y wi th whi c h he wa s i nt e r r o g a t e d s ug g e s ted th atthe po l i ce woul d c o nt i nue to que st i o n h i m unt i lhe con fessed to the sh ooting. W he n ev alu ating w he th er a defe nd an t’s confess i on i s v ol untary, we cer tainl y m ay co ns i der“ th e r epe at ed an d pr o l o ng ed na tu r e o fthe q u es tio n in g” to w h ich th e d efe n d an t w as su bj ec te d

. Sm ith v. Duc kworth , 91 0 F
. 2d 14 92 , 1 49 6 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 0) ( ci ta ti o ns and quotati on m ar ks om i tte d). H owever, the fre quency with whi cha de fen dan t was i nt er r o g at ed i s o nl y o ne ofse ver alf acto rs thatw e co nsi der in ourto tal i ty- of

- thec irc u m st an c es an aly sis
. See G ilbert, 4 88 F
. 3d at7 91 ( no ting that co ur ts may co ns i der, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, the18 N o. 0 8- 1695

Fo r the pu r po s e s o fthi s a ppe a l , we c on s i de r the po l yg r a ph 8 e x a mi n a t i o n t o c o n s t i t u t e a n i n t e r v i e w. Lieutenant D ub is te st ifie d that they did not i nf orm M r. 9 John son ofh i s M i ra nda r i ght s atthe 6: 00 a. m . i nt er vi ew on O ct ober 2 be c a us e Mr. J oh ns onwa s n otc on s i de r e d a s us pec t at that t im e. R.35 at 14- 15. H ow ever, M r. J ohnson w as inf orm ed of his M i ra nda r i g h t s at th e b e g i n n i n g o fh i s s e c o n d i n t e r v i e w, the begi nni ng of hi s pol ygr aph ex am i nat i on and the be gi nni ng ofthe i n terview f oll ow ing the polygrap h exam inat ion. R.35 at 37, 90- 94; R.36 at25- 26. age , exper i ence, educati on, ba ckg ro und and i ntel l i gence o fthe a cc us ed, the l en g tho fthe que st i o ni ng, a nd othe r ci rcum st an ces surr ounding the inter ro gat i on wh en evalu ating w he th er a confession w as volun taril y given). A fterr evi ew i ng the r eco rd, we m ust co ncl ud e that, al though the f act that M r. J ohnson w as que st ioned o n at l eas t four separat e occasi ons befor e he confess ed to 8 th e sh o o ting ce r ta i nl y i s r el ev an t an d pr o ba ti ve on the i ssue ofthe vol untariness ofhi s con fes sio n, o ther factors w eigh a g a in s t a conc lusion th at M r. J ohn son ’s confess i on was co er ced. M r. J ohnson has not al l ege d th atthe c o nd iti o ns o fhi s det en ti o n wer e undul y ha r sh ; the reco rd r e fl e c t s tha tMr
. J o hn s o n wa s o ffe r e d fo o d, b ev er ag es , ciga re tt es an d s h or t b re ak s d u rin g t w o of h is i nter vi ew s. R. 35 at 47; R. 36 at 30- 32. The r eco rd further i nd i cate s that M r. Johnson w as i nfo rm ed ofhi s M i randa ri ghts at the o utseto fal lbut one of his i nter acti ons w i th hi s inter rogat or s. Cf. Haynes v. Was hi ngt on , 37 3 U.S
. 50 3, 9 509- 11, 51 4 ( 1963 ) ( conclud i ng the defendant’s co nfe ssi on w as i nvol untarywh er e pol i ce r efu se d to al l ow him toN o. 0 8- 1695 19

m ake a phone cal land did noti nfo rm hi m o fhi s r i ght t o re m ai n si l ent or hi s ri ght to consul t a n att or ney)
. N otabl y, o ne o fthe i nt er vi ews tha t M r . J o hns on take s i ss ue w i th

— th e O c t o b e r2 i n t e r v i e w th a tl a s t e d fr o m 9 : 0 0 p . m. u n t i l2 : 4 7a . m.

— w as i ni ti ate d at M r. J ohnson’ s r eq u est. R. 35 at 4 2; R. 36 at 72. Thi s f act, wh i ch M r. J ohnson does not ad d ress on a p p eal, c asts som e d ou bt on M r. J ohn son ’s cl ai m tha t he b el i ev ed th atthe i nv es ti g ators woul d c o nti nue to i nter ro gat e hi m unti lhe c onfess ed to the shoo ti ng. I n su m , the c ir cu m stan ces su rroun d ing M r. J ohn son ’s con fession w ere n ot so coercive as to rend er M r. J ohn son ’s con fession in v olun tary. A lthou gh M r. J ohn son w as intervie w ed by d et ec tiv es on fou r se p ar at e o c c as io n s, th er e is n o ev id ence that M r. J ohnson w as depri ved ofphysi cal ne ce ss i ti es o rpr ev en te d fr o m t ak i ng b re ak s dur i ng thos e in te rro gat i ons. A l so, with the poss ibl e e xcepti on o f th e i n t e r v i e w r e q u e s t e d b y Mr
. J o hns o n, th e i n t e r v i e ws w er e n otu n d u ly len g th y. See Led better, 35 F. 3d at 1070 ( consi deri ng the f act that the defendant “had bee n questi oned f ora re aso nabl e a m ount o fti m e” and “had been al low ed th e ne ce ss ary c r ea tu r e co m f o r ts ” i n r ea ch i ng i ts c o nc l usion t ha t th e defen dan t’ s co nfes si o n was v o l unta ry) ; cf
. U nite d States v. H ull, 4 41 F
. 2d 30 8, 3 12 ( 7th Ci r. 19 71 ) ( co nc l udi ngtha t th e defen dan t’ s co nfess i o n was i nv o lun tary w he n h e w as su bj ecte d to contin uo us i nt erro gat i ons for n ea rly tw elv e h ou rs ). Fu rtherm or e, Mr
. J o h n s o n i s n e i th e rt o o y o u ngno rt o o n a i v e t o c o mpr e he nd the me a ningo fthe M ira nda warni ngs that r ep ea te d l y w e r e g ive n to h im ; he is an ad u lt w h o w illing ly i nter acte d w i th hi s inter roga tors. In l i ght o fthes e f acts, w e c on c lu d e t h at, eve n if D et ec tiv e H eie r d elib er at ely20 N o. 0 8- 1695

m i sr epr es en te d the r es ul ts o fthe polyg r aphe xa m i na ti o n, the c i rcum sta nces surr ounding M r. J ohnson’ s confess i on wer e no t so c o er ci ve a s to r en derthe c o nfes si o n inv o l unta ry . C f. Wo o ds v . Clu sen , 794 F. 2d 293, 297 ( 7th C ir. 19 86) (c on c lu d in g t h at th e o ffice rs “h in d er ed [th e juv en ile d efend an t’s] abili ty to m ake a kn ow ing an d volu nt ary ch o i ce . . . t o w aive hi s r i g ht s” b y a r r es tingthe de fen dan t i n hi s be droo m i n the ear l y m or ni ng, st ri pp i ng hi m o f hi s cl o th es , g i vinghi m i ns ti tu ti ona lc l o th i ng

—but not shoe s

— an d m isr ep re se n tin g t h e e vid en c e a ga i n st h im w hile m aking “c learl y i nt im idat ing state m en ts”). Asse ss i nga l l o f th es e f ac ts , we ca nno t co nc l ude tha t th e sta tem ent by Detecti ve H ei er and the fre quen c y w ith w hi ch M r. J ohnson w as i nter ro gat ed und er m i ned M r. J ohnson’s fre e wil land i nd uced him to te nd eran i nvol untary confess i on. Because the confess i on i s not i nvol untarywh en r evie w ed on a de nov o basi s, i t m ost ce r ta i nl y i s no t i nv o l unt ary when revi ewe d unde rthe d eferential s t an d ard of A E D PA
. A ccord ingly, w e affirm the deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
Conclusi on F o rthe f o r eg o i ngr ea sons, the j udg m en t o fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti s a ffi r med

. A FFI RMED

3- 24- 09