Ian Cliett v. L. Scribner

MEMORANDUM **

Respondent-appellant L.E. Scribner appeals the district court’s conditional grant of petitioner-appellee Ian Cliett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 based on his claim that incriminating statements he made during a custodial interrogation were admitted at his trial in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The California Court of Appeal’s decision finding ambiguity in Cliett’s invocation based on his prior cooperation with the detectives was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as recognized by our precedents. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1). Supreme Court cases are the only definitive source of “clearly established” federal law under the Antiter-rorism and Effective Death Penalty Act; however, “we must follow our cases that have determined what law is clearly established.” Byrd v. Lewis, 566 F.3d 855 , 860 n. 5 (9th Cir.2009) (citations omitted).

A person in custody has the right to cut off questioning at any time, and an invocation of that right must be “scrupulously honored.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 479 ,…

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 14 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

IAN CLIETT, No. 12-55146

Petitioner - Appellee, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-06616-SJO-JC

v.

MEMORANDUM *

L.E. SCRIBNER, WARDEN

Respondent - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 11, 2012 Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and BURGESS, District Judge.**

Respondent-appellant L.E. Scribner appeals the district court’s conditional

grant of petitioner-appellee Ian Cliett’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2254 based on his claim that incriminating statements he made during

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The Honorable Timothy Mark Burgess, United States District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. a custodial interrogation were admitted at his trial in…

with whom N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge, and BURGESS, District Judge, join, concurring:

The California Court of Appeal, viewing the entire record in context, reasonably determined that the detectives made no effort to coerce, intimidate, or harass Cliett into talking; the detectives were surprised when Cliett allegedly invoked his right to remain silent in light of his prior cooperation and initial indication that he was willing to talk; the detectives’ responses to the purported invocation were “exclamations of surprise”; and, immediately after those exclamations, Cliett stated, “I’ll talk,” and signed a written Miranda waiver. Based on these factual determinations, I would hold that the Court of Appeal reasonably concluded that, taken in context, Cliett failed to unambiguously and unequivocally invoke his right to remain silent.

However, our prior precedents, dealing with a state court’s conclusion that surrounding circumstances similar to those presented here make an invocation ambiguous, hold that such a conclusion was contrary to and an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court authority. See Anderson v. Terhune, 516 F.3d 781, 787 (9th Cir.) (en banc), cert.…