Opinion ID: 2494
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Denial on Remand and the Instant Appeal

Text: On remand, the district court issued a published opinion that carefully addressed the issues identified by this court and concluded that Acosta's challenge to the admissibility of his confession, to the extent it was based on Detective Aguilar's trial testimony, was (1) procedurally barred because Acosta failed adequately to exhaust that claim in the state courts, and (2) without merit. See Acosta v. Artuz, 375 F.Supp.2d 173. Acosta again moved this court for a certificate of appealability, which was granted on two issues, whether: (1) petitioner `fairly presented' to the state courts his claim that an incriminating statement was admitted at trial in violation of petitioner's rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and Rhode Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 100 S.Ct. 1682, 64 L.Ed.2d 297 (1980); and (2) whether petitioner's Miranda/Innis claim warrants habeas relief. Acosta v. Artuz, No. 05-4196-pr (2d Cir. Sept. 22, 2006). It is to these questions that we now turn.