Terebea Williams v. Deborah Jacquez

MEMORANDUM **

Terebea Jean Williams appeals the district court’s denial of her habeas corpus petition. Williams asserts that this court should vacate her conviction and order a new trial because her custodial statements were admitted at trial in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).

The California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply federal law in determining that any potential violation of Williams’s Miranda rights was excused under California’s rescue doctrine. While the questioning of Williams may have been investigatory in nature as to not fall within the “public safety” exception set out in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984), “fair-minded jurists could disagree.” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 664 , 124 S.Ct. 2140 , 158 L.Ed.2d 938 (2004). The state court’s finding that the officers were prompted by a concern for rescue does not violate “clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

concurring in the judgment.

I write separately because, unlike the majority, I cannot say that the California Court of Appeal’s decision that Williams’s confession was admissible under the California “rescue doctrine” was a reasonable application of New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 , 104 S.Ct. 2626 , 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984). Instead, although a close question, I would affirm because the California trial court was not objectively unreasonable in holding that Williams’s invocation of the right to remain silent was equivocal. See Anderson v. Terhune, 516 F.3d 781 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

“[T]he Supreme Court’s commitment to Miranda’s fundamental tenet — that police must ‘scrupulously honor[ ]’ a suspect’s right to remain silent by immediately ceasing questioning when the suspect invokes this right — has never wavered.” Anderson, 516 F.3d at 788 (quoting Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 479 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966)) (internal citation omitted) (alteration in original). In Quarles , the Supreme Court created a “public safety” exception to Miranda , allowing officers to question a suspect before giving a Miranda warning as long as their questions are “related[d] to an…

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 17 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TEREBEA JEAN WILLIAMS, No. 11-15653

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-00058-LKK-

GGH

v.

DEBORAH JACÏUEZ, MEMORANDUM *

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 20, 2012 San Francisco, California

Before: NOONAN and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and TIMLIN, Senior District Judge.**

Terebea Jean Williams appeals the district court's denial of her habeas

corpus petition. Williams asserts that this court should vacate her conviction and

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Central California, sitting by designation. order a new trial because her custodial statements were admitted at trial in

violation of…