Opinion ID: 4535549
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Age of Onset

Text: We also reject the state court’s finding that Hill’s intellectual and adaptive deficits did not manifest themselves prior to the age of eighteen because clear and convincing evidence suggests otherwise. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). In fact, as noted above, Hill’s disability was extensively documented before he turned eighteen because he spent all of his school years in programs for the intellectually disabled and the juvenile justice system. The record is replete with comments from teachers concerning Hill’s lagging academic performance, his poor memory, his lack of personal hygiene, his immature and inappropriate behavior in relation to his peers, and his tendencies as a follower. Hill, 894 N.E.2d at 128–29 (O’Toole, J., dissenting). In addition to school records, the state court record contains testimony to similar effect from several staff members at a halfway house in which Hill resided as a teenager, as well as a counselor at the juvenile correction facility where he was placed. All the of these significant adaptive skill deficits manifested themselves before Fife was killed in 1985 and, as noted by the experts, there was no reason to suspect that Hill was malingering as a child despite his apparent malingering on the assessments administered in April 2004. The records cover the time frame from 1973 to 1984, six months before the murder for which Hill was sentenced to death, and twenty to thirty years before the Supreme Court decided Atkins. Hill could not have been faking intellectual disability to avoid the death penalty. Accordingly, we reverse the state courts’ conclusion on the age-of-onset prong as it is contradicted by clear and convincing evidence. We recognize, of course, that state court determinations of fact are entitled to a great deal of deference. But “[e]ven in the context of federal habeas, deference does not imply abandonment or abdication of judicial review. Deference does not by definition preclude relief.” Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 27 Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003). Rather than address the abundant evidence in the record of Hill’s adaptive deficits as a child and teenager, the state trial court focused on his ability to engage in “a one-man crime spree at the age of 17” and his ability to “hold his own during police interrogation of the Fife murder.” State v. Hill, No. 85-CR-317, at 82 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas Feb. 15, 2006) (unreported). In so doing, the trial court inappropriately focused on perceived adaptive strengths, ignored clinicians’ warnings not to conflate criminal behavior with adaptive functioning, see, e.g., R. 97 [disc 1] (Hammer Test., Atkins Hr’g Tr.) (Pages 342– 43), and failed to acknowledge that Hill’s performance during the police interrogations was, in the words of the district court, “childlike, confused, often irrational, and primarily selfdefeating.” Hill, 2014 WL 2890416, at . In a three-sentence summary, the state appellate court affirmed the trial court’s findings. Hill, 894 N.E.2d at 126. Such selective reliance on mostly irrelevant pieces of evidence to find that Hill lacked adaptive deficits before the age of 18 constitutes “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Consequently, we conclude that the state court’s finding that Hill’s intellectual and adaptive deficits did not manifest before the age of eighteen amounts to “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).10 For all these reasons, the State of Ohio cannot constitutionally sentence Hill to death under Atkins. IV. SUPPRESSION OF PRETRIAL STATEMENTS TO THE POLICE For the convenience of the parties, this section and those that follow incorporate in toto Sections V through VII of our prior opinion. See 881 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2018). In addition to challenging his eligibility for the death penalty after Atkins, Hill raised several challenges to his conviction in his habeas petition. Because we remanded his case to the state court after Atkins was decided in 2002, we did not reach the merits of those claims. Hill v. Anderson, 300 F.3d 679 (6th Cir. 2002). We do so now and AFFIRM his conviction. 10 As we have decided the merits of Hill’s Atkins claim in his favor, we pretermit discussion of Hill’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel during his Atkins proceedings in state court. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 28 Hill contends that the Ohio courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in determining that Hill’s statements to police were admissible. Hill maintains that his statements were “involuntary and false” because: his intellectual disability made him especially vulnerable to police coercion; his intellectual deficiencies were known by the police, including interrogators Sergeant Thomas Stewart, Sergeant Dennis Steinbeck, and his physically abusive uncle, Detective Morris Hill; the police made statements to Hill that led him to believe that denying guilt was “hopeless”; and Hill lacked the intellectual capacity to understand the legal consequences of the statements he made (and the police recorded) while he was at the Warren police station. Because the Ohio courts rejected this claim on the merits as part of Hill’s direct appeal, see Hill, 595 N.E.2d at 890–91; Hill, 1989 WL 142761, at –8, Hill must show that the state courts’ decisions involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). “[A]n unreasonable application of th[e Supreme Court’s] holdings must be objectively unreasonable, not merely wrong; even clear error will not suffice.” White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697, 1702 (2014) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court held that “[a] suspect in custody must be advised . . .[,] ‘prior to any questioning[,] that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.’” Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 380 (2010) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479). This holding was necessitated by the Supreme Court’s acknowledgement that “the coercion inherent in custodial interrogation blurs the line between voluntary and involuntary statements, and thus heightens the risk that an individual will not be accorded his privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be compelled to incriminate himself.” Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428, 434–35 (2000) (citation, quotation marks, and ellipses omitted). Thus, “[w]hen police ask questions of a suspect in custody without administering the required warnings, Miranda dictates that the answers received be presumed compelled and that they be excluded from evidence at trial in the State’s case in chief.” Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 29 298, 317 (1985); see also Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 487-88 (1972) (“[Miranda] excludes confessions flowing from custodial interrogations unless adequate warnings were administered and a waiver was obtained.”). In this case, it is undisputed that Hill was given Miranda warnings and signed a waiver prior to making the recorded statements that he sought to suppress at trial. Hill’s challenge, then, is to the validity of that waiver. He argues that because his waiver was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, it was invalid. A suspect may waive his Miranda rights only if “the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently.” Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 421 (1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The inquiry has two distinct dimensions. First, the relinquishment of the right must have been voluntary in the sense that it was the product of a free and deliberate choice rather than intimidation, coercion, or deception. Second, the waiver must have been made with a full awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon it. Only if the totality of the circumstances surrounding the interrogation [reveals] both an uncoerced choice and the requisite level of comprehension may a court properly conclude that the Miranda rights have been waived. Id. (citations and quotation marks omitted). For a waiver to be knowing and intelligent, the suspect must be “fully advised of [his] constitutional privilege[s].” Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 574 (1987). To be voluntary, a confession may not be “the product of coercion, either physical or psychological.” Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U.S. 534, 540 (1961). However, “[p]loys to mislead a suspect or lull him into a false sense of security that do not rise to the level of compulsion or coercion to speak are not within Miranda’s concerns.” Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292, 297 (1990); see, e.g., Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 317 (1985) (“[T]he [Supreme] Court has refused to find that a defendant who confesses, after being falsely told that his codefendant has turned State’s evidence, does so involuntarily.”) (citation omitted). “[C]oercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary . . . .’” Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 167 (1986). Although a suspect’s mental condition may be a “significant factor in the ‘voluntariness’ calculus,” that “mental condition, by Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 30 itself and apart from its relation to official coercion, should [n]ever dispose of the inquiry into constitutional ‘voluntariness.’”11 Id. at 164. On December 16, 1985, the Ohio state trial court held a hearing on Hill’s motion to suppress his audio- and video-taped statements to the police.12 At the suppression hearing, witnesses testified to the following facts. On September 12, 1985, two days after Fife was attacked, Hill went to the Warren Police Department and approached Sergeant Stewart to talk about that “boy being beat up in the field.” R. 28 (Suppression Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #2748–49). Stewart, who was a friend of Detective Hill and had known (Danny) Hill since he was approximately six years old, agreed to talk to Hill in the “Narcotics Room.” Id. at 2750–51, 2782. Stewart testified that Hill had come to the police station voluntarily, i.e., that no one had “brought him in,” and Hill’s testimony corroborated this assertion. Id. at 2751; R. 29 (Suppression Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #3130). Once in the Narcotics Room, Hill told Stewart that he had seen another boy, Reecie Lowery, riding the bike of the boy “who was beat up.” R. 28 (Suppression Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #2751–52). When Stewart asked Hill, “How do you know it’s the boy’s bike?”, Hill responded, “I know it is.” Id. at 2752. Hill then told Stewart about the bike’s location and encouraged Stewart to “go out and get the bike” before Lowery put it back in the wooded field where Fife was attacked. Id. After Hill told Stewart that he was willing to show him where the bike was located, Stewart and Hill began talking about various persons, including Tim Collins and Tim Combs (Hill’s co-defendant). Hill insinuated that both Collins and Combs liked boys and might have been the ones who attacked Fife. At some point during their talk, Hill mentioned that Fife was choked with his underwear. Id. at 2756–57. 11 Under Supreme Court precedent, a person who meets the standard for intellectual disability may not be executed. As discussed extensively above, we find that Hill is intellectually disabled and is entitled to have the writ issue with respect to his sentence. However, the requirements for determining whether someone is intellectually disabled under Atkins and Lott are different from the requirements for determining whether a waiver is knowing and voluntary under Miranda. And a person who is intellectually disabled may still be able to knowingly and voluntarily waive his Miranda rights. 12 The transcript of the suppression hearing can be found in the district court record at R. 28 and R. 29 in Hill v. Anderson, No. 4:96-cv-00795 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 28, 1997). Because the pagination in the original transcript is unclear, we will cite to the pagination used by the district court. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 31 Eventually, Stewart drove Hill to look for the bike, but because it was raining and visibility was poor, Stewart and Hill did not go to the wooded field. Instead, Hill showed Stewart where Combs lived. Id. at 2753–54. After dropping Hill off at his house, Stewart compiled a report that he shared with his fellow officers, including Sergeant Steinbeck. Id. at 2755, 2757–58. The next day, September 13, 1985, Steinbeck went to Hill’s home around 9:30 or 10:00 in the morning to follow-up on the information that Hill had given to Stewart. Steinbeck asked Hill to come talk to him at the police station and Hill agreed. Id. at 2762–63, 2881. Hill was driven to the police station in the front seat of Steinbeck’s police cruiser and was not booked, fingerprinted, or placed under arrest. Steinbeck read Hill his Miranda rights aloud, asked Hill if he understood those rights, and had Hill sign a waiver of his Miranda rights before questioning Hill off and on for approximately three hours. Id. at 2863–64, 2882–84. During those three hours, Hill never asked for the questioning to stop, tried to leave, or asked to see an attorney. Id. at 2865–66, 2885–89. After talking to Hill, Steinbeck transcribed a copy of Hill’s statement, which also included a recital of his Miranda rights. However, Hill did not sign the statement that day because Steinbeck had forgotten to ask him to do so after telling Hill he could go home with his mother. Id. at 2866–69, 2889–90. On September 16, 1985, both Steinbeck and Detective Hill went to Hill’s home, ostensibly to ask Hill to sign his statement from September 13 and to ask Hill’s mother for a written statement regarding Hill’s alleged alibi. After putting up some initial resistance to speaking to the police again, Hill, at the behest of his mother, agreed to come down to the police station, this time accompanied by his mother. Hill was not placed under arrest, booked, fingerprinted, or handcuffed. Id. at 2869–70, 2890–92, 2899–2901, 2930–32. In the interrogation room, and apparently separated from his mother, Hill was verbally advised of his Miranda rights by Detective Hill. Id. at 2871, 2901–02, 2933. Hill indicated that he understood his rights. Id. at 2902. Although not initially present, Sergeant Stewart eventually encountered Sergeant Steinbeck and Detective Hill in the interrogation room with (Danny) Hill. Id. at 2758, 2872, 2908. At some point, officers told Hill they did not believe he was telling the truth, and Stewart told Hill that he needed to be honest if he had “anything to do with [Fife’s Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 32 murder].” Id. at 2872, 2909–10. Officers also told Hill that it would “benefit him” to tell them the truth, believing that Combs would likely blame the attack on Hill alone. Id. at 2909. Apparently at Hill’s request, Detective Hill was left alone with his nephew. According to (Danny) Hill, while he and Detective Hill were alone, Detective Hill “threw [him] against the wall,” slapped him across the face, and told him that he “better tell” the police what happened. Id. at 2759, 2810–11, 2859, 2910, 2936–37, 2953. Hill also testified that his uncle kicked him under the table in order to prompt Hill to (1) consent to his statement being taped and (2) begin talking to police at the beginning of the taping. Detective Hill, unsurprisingly, described the time he spent alone with his nephew very differently, testifying: At that point in time, you know, I set [sic] there, and I tried to let Danny know that wasn’t anyone [sic] going to hurt him. No one was going to do anything to him, but [I also told him] the fact that I kn[e]w that he was involved in the homicide, and I wanted to get the truth out of him. At that point in time, he looked at me and tears started to come from his eyes. When tears started coming from his eyes, he told me . . . , “I was there. I was in the field when he got murdered.” When the young Fife kid got murdered.13 R. 28 (Suppression Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #2937). When Detective Hill emerged from the interrogation room a few minutes later, he told the other officers that Hill was going to cooperate and tell them what happened. At the time Detective Hill made this announcement, Hill was either crying or had tears in his eyes. Id. at 2759, 2811, 2839, 2873, 2937–38. At Stewart’s suggestion, Hill gave the police permission to tape his statement. Id. at 2759–60, 2873–76, 2912. Sergeant Steinbeck, Sergeant Stewart, and Detective Hill were all present when Hill gave this initial audiotaped statement, as well as when Hill gave a second statement that was videotaped by Detective James Teeple. Id. at 2874–75. According to Stewart, Hill was not crying during the taped statement itself. About halfway through the audiotaping, the police asked Hill to sign the statement he had given to Steinbeck on September 13. Id. at 2903. Hill was also read his Miranda rights once more at some point prior to giving the second, videotaped statement. Id. at 2876, 2923, 2963–64. While giving his statements, Hill 13 Detective Hill also denied kicking his nephew. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 33 never asked to stop the interrogation, requested an attorney, or asked to leave. Sometime after the interrogation, Hill was placed under arrest based on the details included in his statements. Id. at 2776. When asked questions about the nature of the interrogation generally, both Detective Hill and Sergeant Stewart denied that the police threatened or made promises to Hill during the interrogation, and asserted that Hill never asked for a lawyer. Id. at 2760, 2772, 2935, 2938. When prompted by the prosecutor about Hill’s previous encounters with the police, Detective Hill estimated that by the date of the September 16, 1985 interrogation, Hill had been arrested by the Warren Police Department “[a]pproximately 15 to 20 times.” Id. at 2929. Both Detective Hill and Sergeant Steinbeck testified that they had arrested Hill on prior occasions and had read him his Miranda rights “[m]any times.” Id. at 2876, 2928–29. And two of the prosecution’s exhibits at the suppression hearing included a waiver form and voluntary statement—both of which included a recitation of Miranda rights—signed by Hill on March 6, 1984, which was approximately a year-and-a-half before the September 16, 1985 interrogation. In adjudicating this claim, the state appellate court rejected Hill’s argument that his waiver of his Miranda rights was invalid. Hill, 1989 WL 142761, at . Acknowledging that it needed to make “discrete inquiries” as to both the “knowing and intelligent” and “voluntary” aspects of Hill’s waiver, the appellate court considered these criteria in turn. With regard to the knowing and intelligent factor, the appellate court noted that although the “lack of mental acuity . . . can interfere with an accused’s ability to give a knowing and intelligent waiver,” there is no bright line rule for distinguishing between “those capable of an intelligent waiver from those who lack the ability to do so.” Id. The appellate court also acknowledged the Supreme Court’s admonition in Connelly that a suspect’s mental condition, by itself, does not necessarily prevent him from effectively waiving his Miranda rights. Id. In analyzing the facts of Hill’s case specifically, the appellate court opined: [Hill] admittedly suffers from some mental retardation (although the evidence presented is divergent as to the severity of the handicap) and has had concomitant difficulties in language comprehension throughout his formal education. [Hill] is categorized as being mildly to moderately retarded. Evidence was presented which indicates that appellant is illiterate and this court Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 34 acknowledges that literal recognition of each word contained in the “Miranda Rights” and/or “waiver form” may be beyond [Hill’s] mental comprehensive capacity. However, from the record here, particularly during the suppression hearing, this court is also aware (as was the trial court below) of the long and multi-faceted exposure [Hill] has had with the state’s criminal justice system. The evidential table in this case also demonstrates that [Hill] exhibited a functional capacity to understand these rights, including the right to appointed counsel. This was evident from the exchange that occurred during the audio and video tape sessions. The officers who interrogated [Hill] had either significant contact with him and/or had questioned him on prior occasions and had developed informed estimates as to [Hill’s] ability to understand, albeit in a vernacular sense, all aspects of the Miranda warning. The audio and video tapes of [Hill’s] interrogations disclose that [Hill] was capable of understanding the questions put to him and of responding intelligently. Moreover, the behavior of the [Hill] during the police investigation belies the notion that he was no more than a malleable victim of police suggestion. [Hill] possessed the requisite intelligence to implicate other persons in the murder and was capable of modifying his story when inconsistencies were demonstrated to him. Additionally, [Hill] qualified and corrected the police officers’ misstatements of the factual scenario which he had related to them. He also was able to follow “verbal concepting,” displaying an understanding of the officers’ direction of questioning and the dialogue utilized during the interrogation. Hill, 1989 WL 142761, at . Based on the aforementioned concerns, and citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Miranda and Lego in support, the state appellate concluded that Hill’s waiver was knowing and intelligent. Id. In addressing voluntariness, the appellate court rejected Hill’s argument that his waiver was involuntary “as a result of his mental [infirmities] and the coercive action of the police.” Id. First, the court noted that Hill’s IQ was not necessarily dispositive as to whether he was incapable of voluntarily waiving his Miranda rights, particularly since he had been read those rights in his many prior encounters with police. Id. at –7. In addressing Hill’s argument that his intellectual deficiencies made him vulnerable to the police officers’ “psychological ploys,” the appellate court noted that Hill was read his Miranda rights multiple times on September 13 and 16, 1985, and “appeared articulate and coherent as he answered questions.” Id. at . Finally, in concluding that the record was “devoid of evidence indicating that the custodial interrogation of [Hill] violated his constitutional rights,” the appellate court reasoned that Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 35 because (among other things): (1) Hill originally approached the police on September 12 of his own accord; (2) Hill was read his Miranda rights numerous times without ever being placed under arrest; and (3) “[t]he recorded conversations [between Hill and the police] d[id] not suggest the use of any improprieties by the police,” Hill’s Miranda claim was without merit. Id. at –10. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled similarly, stating: “Upon a careful review of the record, we can discern no coercive or overreaching tactics employed by the police during questioning.” Hill, 595 N.E.2d at 890. In making this finding, the court explicitly acknowledged that before Hill turned 18, Detective Hill “would at times physically discipline [his nephew] at the request of [Hill’s] mother.”14 Id. In fact, the court appeared to credit Detective Hill’s version of events— i.e., that “[Hill] stated to [Detective] Hill that he was ‘in the field behind Valu King when the young Fife boy got murdered.’” Id. The court also found, based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Connelly and Hill’s “his prior dealings with the criminal process as a juvenile,” that Hill’s “mental aptitude did not undercut the voluntariness of his statements or his waiver of Miranda rights.” Id. Finally, the Ohio Supreme Court rejected Hill’s contention that his waiver was rendered involuntary by virtue of the police’s tactics during the interrogation. Id. at 891 (“Upon a careful review of the testimony and the audiotape and videotape statements, we do not find that the interrogation tactics used by the police officers, even in light of [Hill’s] mental capacity, rendered the statements involuntary, or that the officers improperly induced [Hill] to make incriminating statements.”). Reviewing the state courts’ decisions under § 2254(d)(1), the district court found that Hill’s arguments that he should be granted habeas relief on this claim were without merit. Hill v. Anderson, No. 4:96-cv-00795, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23332, at –92 (N. D. Ohio Sept. 29, 1999). 14 Hill was 18 at the time of the September 16, 1985 interrogation, and Detective Hill testified at the suppression hearing that he had not physically disciplined his nephew since at least six to eight months prior. R. 28 (Suppression Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #2976). Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 36 Applying AEDPA’s deferential review standard, we ask whether the state courts unreasonably applied Supreme Court precedent in finding that Hill’s waiver of his Miranda rights was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). Connelly tells us that a compromised mental state does not, “by itself and apart from its relation to official coercion,” vitiate a defendant’s ability to waive his Miranda protections. See 479 U.S. at 164. And Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104 (1985), directs us to treat state-court findings on “subsidiary questions, such as the length and circumstances of the interrogation, the defendant’s prior experience with the legal process, and familiarity with the Miranda warnings” as “conclusive” on habeas review if they are “fairly supported in the record.” Id. at 117. In light of these admonitions, the state courts’ conclusion that Hill effectively waived his Miranda rights was not “unreasonable” as that term has been defined by the Supreme Court. The state courts could plausibly credit Detective Hill’s account of his interrogation techniques over Hill’s allegations of physical abuse to find a lack of undue coercion and could point to Hill’s prior experiences with the criminal justice system and the Miranda process as evidence that Hill understood the nature of his waiver. Although the required deference to the state courts’ finding compels our holding on this issue, we wish to express our consternation with this result. The record contains ample evidence demonstrating that Hill’s waiver was neither voluntary nor knowing. Hill was interrogated, in private, by a police-officer uncle who admitted to disciplining Hill physically in the past, and who allegedly “‘threw [Hill] against the wall,’ slapped him across the face, and told him that he ‘better tell’ the police what happened” during the course of the interrogation. Supra p. 34. Hill’s uncle then purportedly kicked Hill under the table to induce his consent to a videotaped confession and kicked Hill again when he was reluctant to begin the confession. When considered alongside Hill’s intellectual disabilities, Detective Hill’s behavior raises grave questions about the voluntariness of Hill’s waiver. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 37 And while Hill was certainly exposed several times to Miranda warnings, we are not convinced that he ever registered the warnings’ meaning. During the suppression hearing the state trial court held in 1985, Hill’s attorney asked Hill a number of basic questions about his understanding of Miranda: Q: [W]hat are your Constitutional Rights? A: I don’t know. Q: What’s the word constitution mean? A: I don’t know. Q: What’s the word appointed— A: When you point at somebody. Q: You point at somebody? A: Yeah. .... Q: When the police talked to you, did you go ahead and talk to them? A: Yes. Q: Why? A: They police. [sic] You’re supposed to talk to them. Q: You have to talk to them? A: Yep! Q: Do you know what’s an attorney? [sic] A: I don’t know. R. 29 (Suppression Hr’g Tr.) (Page ID #3114–16). It is difficult, in light of this testimony, to accept the state courts’ determination that Hill “exhibited a functional capacity to understand [his] rights.” Hill, 1989 WL 142761, at . Nevertheless, because of the procedural posture of this case, we are compelled to affirm the district court. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of habeas relief as to his suppression claim. Nos. 99-4317/14-3718 Hill v. Anderson Page 38