Scott v. Hepp

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s habeas petition that challenged his murder conviction on ground that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to file motion to suppress his confession, where defendant argued that police violated his Miranda rights, under circumstances where he asked for attorney at time of his arrest, but four hours later, police took him to interview room and read him his Miranda rights, after which he confessed to murder. No U.S. Supreme Ct. case law has applied Miranda beyond context of custodial interrogation to permit accused to request attorney at time of arrest, so as to cut off questioning long before any attempt is made to question him. As such, defendant could not show that state court ruling that rejected his Miranda argument was contrary to, or involved unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by U.S. Supreme Ct.. Moreover, because law is uncertain as to when one may invoke Miranda outside context of custodial interrogation, failure of defendant’s counsel to seek suppression of defendant’s confession based on his request for attorney four hours prior to any initial custodial interrogation was, by itself, not enough to demonstrate deficient performance by trial counsel.