Wesley v, Hepp

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that had challenged his murder conviction, on ground that state court had violated his Fifth Amendment rights by admitting inculptory statements that defendant had made during third police interrogation, where defendant had invoked right to remain silent during first interrogation, and where defendant claimed that he had unambiguously invoked right to remain silent during third interrogation that occurred during next day. Record showed that: (1) defendant had been given Miranda warnings prior to third interrogation and made following statements, i.e., “ Ain’t nothing to talk about, doe,” “I ain’t got shit to say about no homicide,” “Can I go back to my cell now;” (2) later during same interrogation, defendant made incriminating statements about charged murder; and (3) state court denied defendant’s motion to suppress said statements. Ct. of Appeals rejected defendant’s claim that state court erred in denying his motion to suppress, where: (1) there was sufficient lapse in time between first interrogation when defendant initially invoked right to remain silent and third interrogation; (2) defendant was given Miranda warnings prior to third interrogation; and (3) defendant’s statements at start of third interrogation  did not unambiguously invoke right to remain silent, where they could reasonably have been interpreted as being exculpatory statements about charged murder.