Cooper v. Berghuis

• Decision Date: 08 March 2018
• Docket Number: Case Number: 2:15-10679
• Parties: WILBERN COOPER, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

WILBERN COOPER, Petitioner, v. MARY BERGHUIS, Respondent.

Case Number: 2:15-10679

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

March 8, 2018

HONORABLE SEAN F. COX

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND GRANTING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY, IN PART

Petitioner Wilbern Cooper seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner is a state prisoner in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections pursuant to a felony-murder conviction. He seeks relief on the ground that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the admission of his custodial statements. Respondent argues that Petitioner's challenge to the admission of one of his custodial statements is procedurally defaulted and that all of the custodial statements were properly admitted. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the petition and grants a certificate of appealability, in part.

I. Background

Petitioner's conviction arises from the murder of David McKillop. McKillop was shot multiple times in a home he shared with Paul Robert Jenkins. It was the prosecutor's theory that Jenkins was the intended target and that Petitioner had gone to Jenkins' home at the direction of Petitioner's roommate, John Anderson. Jenkins purportedly owed a large sum of money to Anderson for drugs and Petitioner and some associates were directed to go to Jenkins' home to encourage him to repay the debt. The Michigan Court of Appeals provided this overview of the circumstances leading to Petitioner's conviction:

The victim was murdered in September of 1978. His body was discovered by his roommate, Paul Jenkins, who was not home during the murder. The victim was lying in a pool of blood in his bedroom with his hands tied behind his back with an electrical cord. He was shot seven times in the head, and sustained an injury to his groin. A pillow was discovered next to the victim's body and was riddled with bullet holes, residue, burns, and blood.

While the police conducted an initial investigation in 1978, they did not discover any evidence of a forced entry or ransacking. The police interviewed Jenkins, who informed them that the victim was involved in a cult and was probably murdered for having sex with married women. Jenkins allegedly owed a debt to John Anderson, defendant's roommate, although Jenkins denied this at the time of trial. The police also interviewed Billy Lolley. Lolley had encountered the victim either the day of the murder or the day before, as the victim worked at a real estate agency owned by Jenkins, and the victim had shown Lolley a house. While the detectives pursued several leads, they cleared all of their suspects without discovering who killed the victim.

In November of 2006, however, Lolley contacted the Farmington Hills Police Department about the murder, seeking to clear his conscience. Lolley told the police that someone had offered defendant $3,000 to kill a man and defendant, in turn, offered Lolley $1,500 to be the driver. Lolley refused the offer, thinking that defendant may have been joking. Yet, after the murder, defendant told Lolley that he had killed the victim. Defendant explained that he laid the victim down on the floor, put a pillow on his head, and shot him repeatedly in the head. Defendant confessed to Lolley that they had meant to kill Jenkins but had accidently killed the victim. Anderson warned Lolley to keep quiet or they would kill Lolley or his children.

The police interviewed defendant several times, and defendant's statements were admitted at trial.

People v. Cooper, No. 304610, 2013 WL 2223896 (Mich. Ct. App. May 21, 2013).

Following a jury trial in Oakland County Circuit Court, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree felony murder and second-degree murder. The second-degree murder count was vacated on double jeopardy grounds. On June 1, 2011, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for felony murder. Petitioner filed an appeal of right in the Michigan Court of Appeals, raising several claims, including the claim raised in this petition. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's conviction. Id. The Michigan Supreme Court denied Petitioner's subsequent application for leave to appeal. People v. Cooper, 495 Mich. 900 (2013).

Petitioner then filed the pending habeas corpus petition through counsel. He raises this claim:

The trial court violated Mr. Cooper's constitutional rights by admitting into evidence statements obtained where police questioned appellant after he unambiguously invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; any statements made thereafter were involuntary and should have been suppressed.

Respondent has filed an answer in opposition, arguing that portions of this claim are procedurally defaulted and that the entire claim is without merit.

II. Standard

Review of this case is governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 ("AEDPA"). Under the AEDPA, a state prisoner is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus only if he can show that the state court's adjudication of his claims -

(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or (2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.

28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

A decision of a state court is "contrary to" clearly established federal law if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by the Supreme Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than the Supreme Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 (2000). An "unreasonable application" occurs when "a state court decision unreasonably applies the law of [the Supreme Court] to the facts of a prisoner's case." Id. at 408. "[A] federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly." Id. at 411.

The Supreme Court has explained that "[a] federal court's collateral review of a state-court decision must be consistent with the respect due state courts in our federal system." Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 340 (2003). The "AEDPA thus imposes a 'highly deferential standard for evaluating state-court rulings,' and 'demands that state-court decisions be given the benefit of the doubt.'" Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766, 773 (2010) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 333 n. 7 (1997)); Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U.S. 19, 24 (2002) (per curiam). "[A] state court's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief so long as 'fairminded jurists could disagree' on the correctness of the state court's decision." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 101 (2011). The Supreme Court has emphasized "that even a strong case for relief does not mean the state court's contrary conclusion was unreasonable." Id. at 102. Furthermore, pursuant to § 2254(d), "a habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or ... could have supported, the state court's decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of th[e Supreme] Court." Id.

Although 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the AEDPA, does not completely bar federal courts from relitigating claims that have previously been rejected in the state courts, it preserves the authority for a federal court to grant habeas relief only "in cases where there is no possibility fairminded jurists could disagree that the state court's decision conflicts with" Supreme Court precedent. Id. Indeed, "Section 2254(d) reflects the view that habeas corpus is a 'guard against extreme malfunctions in the state criminal justice systems,' not a substitute for ordinary error correction through appeal." Id. (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 332 n. 5 (1979)) (Stevens, J., concurring)). Therefore, in order to obtain habeas relief in federal court, a state prisoner is required to show that the state court's rejection of his claim "was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement." Id. at 103.

Additionally, a state court's factual determinations are entitled to a presumption of correctness on federal habeas review. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1). A petitioner may rebut this presumption with clear and convincing evidence. See Warren v. Smith, 161 F.3d 358, 360-61 (6th Cir. 1998). Moreover, habeas review is "limited to the record that was before the state court." Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. 170, 181 (2011).

III. Discussion

Over 32 years after David McKillop's murder, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree felony murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Petitioner argues that his custodial statements were improperly admitted because his assertion of his right to silence was not scrupulously honored. Alternatively, he argues that his custodial statements were not voluntarily made. Petitioner further contends that the admission of these statements was not harmless error.

Police interviewed Petitioner twice before his arrest, once in December 2006, and once in January 2010. Police interviewed Petitioner three times after arresting him on March 2, 2010. Two of these interviews occurred on March 2, 2010, and one occurred the following day, March 3, 2010. Petitioner challenges the admission of the second March 2nd interview and the March 3rd interview. The Court finds that Petitioner clearly and unambiguously invoked his right to remain silent during the second March 2nd interview and that admission of the portion of the interview following invocation of this...