Legal Document

516 U.S. 99116 S.Ct. 457133 L.Ed.2d 383 Carl THOMPSON, Petitioner,v.Patrick KEOHANE, Warden, et al. No. 94-6615. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 11, 1995. Decided Nov. 29, Syllabus* During a two-hour, tape-recorded session at Alaska state trooper headquarters, petitioner Thompson confessed he had killed his former wife. m aintained that troopers gained confession without according him warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 436, 86 1602, 16 694. The trial court denied motion to suppress confession, however, ruling was not "in custody" for purposes, therefore were inform rights. After which prosecution played jury found guilty first-degree murder, and Appeals affirmed conviction. Federal District Thompson's petition writ habeas corpus, Ninth Circuit affirmed. Both courts held court's defendant purposes qualifies as "fact" determination entitled presumption correctness under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Held: State-court rulings, made determine whether are due, do qualify Such rulings resolve "a factual issue." Instead, they mixed questions law fact warrant independent review federal court. Pp. 462-467. (a) Section 2254(d) declares that, in proceeding instituted person custody pursuant state-court judgment, issue" ordinarily "shall be presumed correct." This has "basic, primary, or historical facts" "factual issue[s]" statutory dominantly relates. See, e.g., Miller Fenton, 474 104, 112, 106 445, 450, 88 405. Nonetheless, proper characterization question one is sometimes slippery. Two lines decisions compose Court's law/fact jurisprudence. In several cases, classified issues" within 2254(d)'s compass extending beyond "what happened." resolution issues involved these notably competency stand juror impartiality, depends heavily on superior ability appraise witness credibility demeanor. On other hand, recognized "uniquely legal dimension" presented such voluntariness effectiveness counsel's assistance ranked purposes. "What happened" determinations cases correctness, but "the ultimate question," declared, remains outside domain matter determination." Ibid. 462-465. (b) fits latter class cases. discrete inquiries essential there 'formal arrest restraint freedom movement' degree associated with formal arrest." California Beheler, 463 1121, 1125, 103 3517, 3520, 77 1275. first inquiry—i.e., what circumstances surrounded interrogation —is distinctly findings response inquiry attract second would reasonable have felt she liberty terminate leave—calls application controlling standard facts thus presents "mixed fact" qualifying review. practical considerations prompted type like bias dominate inquiries. inquiries, capacity foremost factor. Notably absent from purview any first-person vantage defendant, when interrogated, so situated Thus, once resolved, an appreciably better position than make consistency enforcement officer's conduct warning requirement. Furthermore, classifying should serve legitimate interests effectively it serves insure protection right against self-incrimination. As bear out, declaration aspect potentially may guide police, unify precedent, stabilize law. 465-467. 34 F.3d 1073 (CA 9 1994), vacated remanded. GINSBURG, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, BREYER, JJ., joined. THOMAS, filed dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C.J., Julie R. O'Sullivan, Washington, DC, petitioner. Cynthia M. Hora, Anchorage, AK, respondents. Justice GINSBURG Court. 1 placed evidence ensuing trial, convicted murder. Challenging conviction corpus proceeding, maintained 694 (1966), requires: could remain silent; anything said used court; attorney, either retained appointed. 2 due only suspect interrogated police custody." appellate determined confessed. statute governing proceedings, 2254, directs ordinarily, before this finding warranting calling We hold issue custody," warnings, 3 * September 10, 1986, two moose hunters discovered body dead woman floating gravel pit lake outskirts Fairbanks, Alaska. been stabbed twenty-nine times. Notified hunters, issued press release seeking identifying body. called 11 them wife, Dixie Thompson, fit description missing about month. Through dental examination, conclusively established corpse Thompson. 15, asked come purportedly identify personal items thought belonged It now undisputed, trooper's primary reason contacting 4 drove troopers' headquarters pickup truck, upon arriving, immediately identified Dixie's. He remained more hours while unarmed continuously questioned small interview room exchange. did Althou gh constantly assured free leave, also told repeatedly knew Informing execution search underway home, truck searched another warrant, invited confession. App. 43-79.1 Eventually, Dixie. 5 promised, permitted impounded truck. Left transportation, accepted offer ride friend's house. Some later, arrested charged 6 court, holding evidentiary hearing, 15 statements. Tr. 118 (Dec. 12, 1986); 142 (Mar. 18, 1987). Deciding papers submitted, ruled no obligation 8-9.2 Applying objective test question, " 'a feel leave break off questioning.' Id., 7 (quoting Hunter State, 590 P.2d 888, 895 (Alaska 1979)). These features, indicated, key: arrived station request; plain clothes him; go time; conclusion interrogation. 7-8. Although totality circumstances, observed subsequent actions—releasing shortly thereafter arresting Thompson—rendered "very close." 8-9. murder tampering evidence. conviction, concluding, among things, give warnings. 768 127, 131 App.1989).3 discretionary 24. 8 writ, confessed, yet 37. publishing opinion. (1994). Based precedent,4 2254(d)." 41. Courts disagree asks us resolve: matters 2254(d), Compare Feltrop Delo, 46 766, 773 (C.A.8 1995) (applying p resumption correctness), Jacobs Singletary, 952 F.2d 1282, 1291 (C.A.11 1992) (conducting review). Because uniformity important order, we granted certiorari end division authority. 513 ----, 115 933, 130 879 (1995). does apply rulings; accordingly, vacate Circuit's judgment. II 10 "[I]n-custody interrogation[s]," place "inherently compelling pressures" persons interrogated. U.S., 467, S.Ct., 1624. To safeguard uncounseled individual's Fifth Amendment privilege self-incrimination, held, suspects must silent, say presence appointed, 444, 1612. defined "custodial interrogation" "questioning initiated officers after taken into otherwise deprived action significant way." Ibid.; see Oregon Mathiason, 429 492, 495, 97 711, 713-714, 50 714 (1977) (per curiam) (duty triggered "only where restriction person's render 'in custody' ") (quoted Stansbury California, 511 114 1526, 1528, 128 293 (1994) curiam)). Our task case courts' determinations.5 2254 governs proceedings judgment declares, correct" enumerated exceptions. 2254(d).6 provision, added 1966 amendment, Act 2, 1966, Pub.L. 89-711, 80 Stat. 1105-1106, received close attention 405 (1985). observed, "was almost verbatim codification standards delineated Townsend Sain, 372 293, 83 745, 770 (1963), determining district hearing acting petition." Miller, 111, 450.7 counseled if full fair . resulting reliable findings," "ordinarily accept found" tribunal. 318, 760. essentially "elevated [the Court's] exhortation mandatory correctness." 111-112, 450; id., 450 (emphasizing respect appropriately accorded coequal judiciary" citing Culombe Connecticut, 367 568, 605, 81 1860, 1880, 1037 (1961) (opinion Frankfurter, J.)). 12 Just Townsend's instruction captured presumption, adhered definition term issue."8 explained 'issues fact,' meant facts: sense recital external events their narrators. .' 309, n. 6, 756, Brown Allen, 344 443, 506, 73 437, 446, L.Ed. 469 (1953) "So-called law, require historical-fact determinations," added, "are sense." 6.9 applying reaffirmed ("[S]ubsidiary questions" alleged involuntariness subject question"—requiring "totality circumstances" assessment—"is determination."); Cuyler Sullivan, 446 335, 342, 100 1708, 1715, 64 333 (1980) ("mixed determination[s] generally correctness). 13 acknowledged, "that charted entirely clear course area." 113, 451. regard contexts,10 See ibid.; Wainwright Witt, 412, 429, 105 844, 855, 841 (1985) ("It will always easy separate 'fact' 'mixed fact' ."). 14 category includes: (e.g., Maggio Fulford, 462 117, 2261, 2264, 76 794 (1983) ); impartiality 854; Patton Yount, 467 1025, 1036, 104 2885, 2891, 847 (1984); Rushen Spain, 464 114, 120, 453, 456, 78 267 (1983)). While encompass facts," appraisal 855 (Although "applying some kind [it] sees hears," its "predominate function involves whose basis cannot easily discerned record."). reasoned positioned genre, jurist-observer "presumptive weight." 452 (when "issue credibilit y witnesses turns largely evaluation demeanor, familiar justifications leaving process court"). purposes: (Miller, 116, 452); (Strickland 466 668, 698, 2052, 2070, 674 (1984)); potential conflict interest arising out attorney's representation multiple defendants (Cuyler, 341-342, 1714-1715). warranted declared question" because dimension." 452; Sumner Mata, 455 591, 597, 102 1303, 1306, 71 480 (1982) ("[T]he constitutionality pretrial identification procedures governed 2254(d)."); Brewer Williams, 430 387, 397, 4, 403-404, 1232, 1238, 1241-1242, 51 424 (waiver Sixth counsel fact, rather requires constitutional principles facts). B persuaded, determination: first, surrounding interrogation; second, given those circumstances,11 leave. Once scene set players' actions reconstructed, inquiry": "[was] 1275 714). inquiry, all agree, factual. scene- action-setting calls facts. determination, hold, 17 issue[s]," dominant here. illustrates, dispositive inquiry.12 Credibility determinations, contribute establishment circumstances." But crucial entails circumstances: encountered "reasonable person," add up Miranda?13 Berkemer McCarty, 468 420, 442, 3138, 3151, 82 317 (1984) (court assess "how man suspect's understood situation"); cf. 116-117, 453 ("[A]ssessments demeanor 'voluntariness.' "). 18 Unlike voir dire juror, Patton, 1038, 2892, defendant's competency, Maggio, "take[s] open record," ibid. (police interrogations yielding confessions occur, coercive environment"). fathoming mind order answer questions, "Is bias?," competent trial?," makes individual-specific decision, unlikely precedential value.14 contrast, future decisions.15 conclude ultimate] determination" 19 Notably, treated complained erroneously expanded meaning interrogation." 1121-1125, 3517-3520 (summarily reversing Appeal's respondent custody"); 494-496, 713-715 Hass, 420 714, 719, 95 1215, 1219, 43 570 (1975) ("[A] State impose greater restrictions [on activity] specifically refrains imposing them."). anomalous differently individual complains constricted conclusion. 20 Classifying our Berkemer, 436-439, 3148-3150 (routine traffic stop—typically temporary, brief, public —does driver purposes); Monaghan, Constitutional Fact Review, 85 Colum.L.Rev. 229, 273-276 ("norm elaboration occurs best power consider fully series closely related situations"; case-by-case implicated accurately described application). 21 22 both vacated, remanded further consistent 23 ordered. syllabus constitutes part prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Lumber Co., 200 321, 337, 26 282, 287, 499. passages transcript indicate tenor questioning: "Q Do you know—of course, I don't mean take lot your time, you—you can time want to, you've got something else going on. "A Oh (indiscernible) around here, no. know probably woke and. No, just laying there. Okay. know, to. a—you we're trying —trying crack thing, I—I imagine it's secret your—your friends associates who saying, they've pointing you. Yeah, guy we've ten years, starting stuff never even said. 44-45. And I'm willing work thing bad situation. can't tell isn't you're get walk here and—and talk me again. telling last chance we'll to—for people gonna believe let's just—let's there's enough already can—we prove doubt that—that responsible thing—this thing. Well really she's for, that's stuck problem. I've story. haven't critical gets killed. that. That's guys' job. You're supposed you, who, where, when, how. why. straight today between I. There's my it. looking care wanted happen. think honest turn later try am being haven't. You truth it, lying directly me, omission. served [your home] forensic expert from—from Anchorage. Huh. person. don't. [W]hat happened planned, things this—I hell mess now. She's got—she's finally trouble possibly imagine. brought She causes started grabbing knife saying turned happened. things. ." 49-51. rejected contention involuntary. direct review, unsuccessfully asserted His present issue. unclear deference custody"; decisions, reviewed "clear error." Higgins 887 966, 971 App.1994); McKillop 857 358, 361 App.1993). panel relied Krantz Briggs, 983 961, 964 (C.A.9 1993), merits. Claims incorrectly decided issues, Withrow 507 113 1745, 123 407 (1993), confirms, considered lists eight exceptions correctness. full, reads: "In merits , jurisdiction applicant officer agent thereof parties, evidenced written finding, adequate indicia, shall correct, unless establish appear, admit — "(1) dispute resolved hearing; "(2) factfinding procedure employed afford "(3) material adequately developed "(4) lacked over proceeding; "(5) indigent deprivation right, failed appoint represent "(6) receive fair, "(7) "(8) record made, pertinent sufficiency support produced provided hereinafter, consideration whole concludes fairly supported record: "And proof existence respectively forth paragraphs numbered (1) (7), inclusive, shown applicant, appears, admitted respondent, provisions paragraph (8) whole, burden rest convincing erroneous." list H.R.Rep. 1384, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 25 (1964), similar 313, 757, (1963). legislative history indicates House Judiciary Committee, framing recommendations, mindful recent including Townsend. supra, 24-25. J. Liebman & Hertz, Habeas Corpus Practice Procedure 20.1a, pp. 537-538 (2d ed.1994) (description interplay Townsend). Keeney Tamayo-Reyes, 504 1, 112 318 (1992), partially overruled point relevant here; "cause-and-prejudice" standard, "deliberate by-pass" correct excusing petitioner's failure develop proceedings. 5-6, 1717-1718. 507, J.) ("Where ascertainment dispose claim interpretation significance facts, Judge exercise own blend values. so-called duty adjudication judge.") (citation omitted). Cooter Gell Hartmarx Corp., 496 384, 401, 110 2447, 2458, 359 (1990) (observing sanctions imposed Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 11: "The long noted difficulty distinguishing issues."); Pullman-Standard Swint, 456 273, 288, 1781, 1790, 72 66 (acknowledging, relation intent Title VII vexing nature distinction law"). cast contrary respondent's suggestions, deferential order. (state-court "whether, obtained manner Constitution" court). earlier __, statements submitted hearing. Respondents observe person" assessments, most prominently gauge negligence injury litigation, fall province triers. e.g, Gell, 402, 2459 (negligence "generally deferentially"); McAllister States, 348 19, 20-23, 75 7-9, 99 (1954) (district "clearly erroneous"); 9A C. Wright A. 2590 ed.1995). Traditionally, system entrusted jurors, inviting community standards. W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, Keeton Owen, Prosser Law Torts 37, 235-237 (5th ed.1984). For reason, "[t]he usually fact," although "it apparent fixing differs judge reduced approaching definite rule." 237. Judges alone assessments view recurrent patterns, advancing uniform outcomes. If supply rule," nonetheless reduce area uncertainty. Illinois Perkins, 292, 296, 2394, 2396, 243 (Miranda prior questioning incarcerated undercover suspect, unaware presence, coerced); 3148-3150, (nature suspected offense irrelevant administer warnings); 495-496, 713-715, (fact not, itself, warnings). contexts, similarly concluded likely absence value cuts requiring plenary determination. example, decision confirming abuse-of-discretion applies 'fail produce normal law-clarifying benefits 404, 2460 Pierce Underwood, 487 552, 561, 108 2541, 2548, 101 490 (1988)). ---- - 1529-1531, (review precedent demonstrated "well settled" principle: undisclosed, subjective belief determination); Pennsylvania Bruder, 488 9, 109 205, 207, 172 (1988) (summary reversal appropriate rule (1984), ordinary stops involve "custody" Miranda). djQ whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. murdered ex-wife, stabbing her 29 then wrapped chains bedspread tossed water-filled pit. investigation, Alaska, role was, f act, questioning. judge—who decade ago—was far (1966). So finds record, presume correct. dissent. Miranda, examine interrogation, 'the simply [was] "formal movement" arrest.' 1529, curiam), quoting ). "[T]he how shoes situation." 1529 (1984)). agree majority applied making inquiry. light articulated 5, 1717, dictate result way case. 854, (juror though hears"); 1037, "[t]here are, deciding qualified"). "falls somewhere pristine simple decide, "as sound administration justice, [which] judicial actor decide question." 451, is, estimation, best-positioned relatively straightforward fact-laden custody. 1128, 3521 (Stevens, dissenting) (state "courts equipped practices highly particular amount custodial interrogation"). complex diverse case-specific factors effort gain overall situation include, minimum, location, timing, length interview, tone questioning, came voluntarily, use physical contact restraint, key players, during assessing often live testimony, documentary evidence, listen audiotapes watch videotapes Assessments ult imate weigh conflicting accounts transpired. draw inferences, deference, "physical facts." Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 574, 1504, 1511-1512, 84 518 "shades degrees," 1764, (1993) (O'Connor, concurring part), number 'fact-intensive, calls.' 2460, quite contains component—how situation," 1529—but deferentially. (Rule tests, line pure non-technical commonsensical—as reasonableness faint one." Humphrey, 551, 559 (C.A.7 1994) (Posner, concurring). distorts reality subtle, factbound shoes" window comes "ultimate inquiry," ante, assessed [is] unique position, observing defendant] listening [defendant's] station." Purvis Dugger, 932 1413, 1419 1991), cert. denied, 503 940, 1485, 117 627 (1992). meaningfully applied. ("Familiar litigants, [trial] appeals marshal fact-dependent standard"). reasons, trier put himself shoes, consequently shoes. courts, reviewing cold much initial inferior assessment. Though may, perhaps, reflected many comprise judge's difficult writing, preserved meaningful appeal. "State qualified error evaluate prejudicial effect." Brecht Abrahamson, 1710, 1721, 353 (1993). "Absent indication contrary, faithfully courts." 1770 (SCALIA, part). insult colleagues imply, today, judges sufficiently Miranda. 1765 (O'CONNOR, part)("We depend officials [Miranda ] instance provide remedy err").1 remand analysis. There voluntarily. time. left freely arrest, voluntarily station, allowed unhindered brief interview." "clear" "came informed arrest," "[a]t 1/2-hour hindrance." 714; ("Nor requirement takes house, suspect"). violation de novo now, avoid putting uncertainty expense defending sixth nine years eminently secured murderer.2 respectfully believes oversight judgments necessary "advanc[e] outcomes," achieved, "reduce uncertainty." Ante, 13. outcome virtue worth pursuing generally, beginning Teague Lane, 489 1060, 334 (1989) (plurality opinion), habeas, concerns comity finality. 310, 1075 ("The 'costs State[s] retroactive new rules outweigh application' Solem Stumes, 465 638, 654, 1338, 1347-1348, 79 579 (Powell, judgment)). fine-tuning criminal valid convictions based applications then-existing Butler McKellar, 494 407, 414, 1212, 1217, 347 'new rule' principle validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations existing precedents courts"). extent merit all, seems certain relief barred 301, 1070, progeny. finality, predictability, underlying jurisprudence undermined equal invocation dictated old precedent." Stringer Black, 222, 228, 1130, 1135, case, "granting sought create novel setting, thereby Beheler State's very least, reasonable. "Teague insulates ' "reasonable, precedents." West, 505 277, 8, 2482, 2490, 120 225 (1992) Sawyer Smith, 497 227, 234, 2822, 2827, 111 193 (1990), 1217).

Classification Label: 0