Deweaver

Deweaver v. Runnels

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 25, 200906-16865California7,292 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hug, J.

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMILE DEWEAVER, 

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 06-16865 v.  D.C. No.

CV-03-00839-MJJ

DAVID L. RUNNELS, Warden, High Desert State Prison, OPINION Respondent-Appellee.  Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 21, 2008—San Francisco, California

Filed February 25, 2009

Before: Procter Hug, Jr., John T. Noonan and Sandra S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Hug

2197 2200 DEWEAVER v. RUNNELS

COUNSEL

Mary E. Pougiales, Novato, California, for the petitioner- appellant.

Juliet B. Haley, Deputy Attorney General, San Francisco, Cal- ifornia, for the respondent-appellee.

OPINION

HUG, Circuit Judge:

Emile DeWeaver petitions for habeas relief arguing that the California Court of Appeal erroneously concluded that he did not invoke his right to remain silent during interrogation, his confession was voluntary, and the state trial court’s interac- tions with the jury did not coerce a verdict. For DeWeaver to succeed,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.