Opinion ID: 5130370
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Miranda Claim COA

Text: We now address whether we should grant a COA on Petitioner’s Miranda claim that his waiver was not knowing and intelligent. 6 Case: 20-70008 Document: 00516111570 Page: 7 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 No. 20-70008 The State first argues that there is no “believable evidence” in the record that undermines Petitioner’s written waiver and which demonstrates a Miranda violation. But the record contains evidence to support Aranda’s claims, including evidence that he did not realize that he was being charged with capital murder, evidence that he had limited ability to speak and understand English, and evidence of his injuries from surgery earlier in the day. In light of this evidence, jurists of reasons could debate whether Petitioner’s Miranda claim has merit. In this “threshold inquiry,” we cannot deny Aranda a COA on this ground. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. The State next argues that the state court’s findings regarding Petitioner’s Miranda claim are entitled to a presumption of correctness and should be dispositive here. The version of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 that was in place at the time Aranda filed his petition stated that in federal habeas cases, “a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding [and] evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct” subject to certain exceptions. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (1988). But the sole written opinion that the State points us to addresses only whether Aranda’s claim was voluntary. And although the trial court held a hearing addressing many of Aranda’s arguments here and orally ruled in favor of the State by allowing the confession into the record, “reasonable jurists [could] find [that] the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims [is] debatable or even wrong.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 338 (quotation omitted). Finally, the State argues that even if there was Miranda error, it was harmless because the State produced overwhelming evidence of Aranda’s guilt other than the confession. But assessing whether any Miranda error was harmless would require us to assume a constitutional error and delve into the merits of Aranda’s claim, which is beyond the “threshold inquiry” we engage 7 Case: 20-70008 Document: 00516111570 Page: 8 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 No. 20-70008 in at this stage. Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327. In any event, jurists of reason could debate whether any constitutional error was harmless, particularly because “confessions have a profound impact on the jury.” Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 140 (1968) (White, J., dissenting). In sum, at this stage Aranda has demonstrated that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his Miranda claim. We therefore grant a COA as to this claim.