Simpson v. Jackson, 08-3224.
Citation | 615 F.3d 421 |
Decision Date | 13 July 2010 |
Docket Number | No. 08-3224.,08-3224. |
Parties | Donovan E. SIMPSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Wanza JACKSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
ARGUED: Brian Fletcher, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gene D. Park, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Brian Fletcher, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Gene D. Park, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.
Before: MARTIN, SUHRHEINRICH, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
MARTIN, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which SUHRHEINRICH, J., joined. WHITE, J. (pp. 445-48), delivered a separate opinion dissenting in part and concurring in part.
Petitioner Donovan Simpson, an Ohio inmate, seeks habeas relief from his convictions for aggravated murder, murder, five counts of attempted murder, aggravated arson, and five counts of felonious assault, all arising from a fatal arson. An Ohio jury convicted him under an aiding and abetting theory for assisting another individual in preparing a “Molotov cocktail” and helping the individual flee after throwing the bomb at a house, resulting in the death of a child sleeping inside. Simpson claims that four of his statements-made on April 24, April 27, June 16, and June 20, 2000-were erroneously admitted into evidence in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), and its progeny, as well as in violation of the Fifth Amendment. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the June 16th statement was properly admitted into evidence but that the state court's admission of the statements made on April 24th, April 27th, and June 20th was contrary to and an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent at the time the conviction became final. These errors were harmless as to Simpson's convictions for aggravated arson and felonious assault, so we deny relief as to those convictions. However, the errors were not harmless as to the convictions for aggravated murder, murder, and attempted murder, so we grant Simpson a writ of habeas corpus as to those convictions.
The last state court decision on the merits, see Garcia v. Andrews, 488 F.3d 370, 374 (6th Cir.2007), is that of the Court of Appeals of Ohio on Simpson's direct appeal. That court set forth the facts as follows:
guilty plea to all of the charges and proceeded to a jury trial.
abide by the terms of his probation, Detective Kallay arrested appellant on June 16, 2000.
After he was arrested, appellant was taken to CPD headquarters and interrogated by Detective Kallay and Special Agent Ozbolt. The interrogation was videotaped. It is undisputed that, prior to being questioned, appellant was read his Miranda rights. During questioning, appellant admitted his involvement in starting the fire. He said that he met Leah and Kelly the day before the fire when Leah asked appellant to take Kelly somewhere that night. Later that evening, Kelly and appellant took two empty bottles of alcohol and filled them with gasoline. They brought the bottles to Leah who showed them how to make a Molotov cocktail. Appellant and Kelly then went to the area of 151 South Wheatland Avenue and drove into an alley. After smoking some crack, Kelly got out of the car with the two bottles and, a few seconds later, appellant heard glass break and then saw Kelly running back towards the car without the bottles. The two sped away to a crack house, where they paged Leah. She arrived and paid them both with crack cocaine.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fields v. Howes
...*2. Any doubt that Fields was in Miranda custody is erased by both this Court's recent decision in Simpson v. Jackson, 615 F.3d 421, No. 08-3224, 2010 WL 2771861 (6th Cir. July 13, 2010), and the Supreme Court's opinion in Maryland v. Shatzer, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 1213, --- L.Ed.2d ----......
-
State v. Gonzalez, 18070.
...her rights to remain silent and to counsel and police did not ask further questions about alleged murder); see also Simpson v. Jackson, 615 F.3d 421, 430–31 (6th Cir.2010) (upon invocation of rights, police officers need only stop questioning suspect); United States v. Muhammad, 196 Fed.App......
-
Carter v. Mitchell
...only permissible factors.A. Standard and Framework for Review We review a district court's habeas rulings de novo. Simpson v. Jackson, 615 F.3d 421, 428 (6th Cir.2010). Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), when a state court adjudicates a c......
-
Mckinney v. Ludwick
...light of precedent establishing that police can inform a suspect about the potential legal consequences of his crime, Simpson v. Jackson, 615 F.3d 421, 436 (6th Cir.2010)—or even promise that, by cooperating, a suspect can avoid the death penalty, Anderson v. Terhune, 467 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9......