Smith v. Boughton
| Decision Date | 04 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | 17-2192 |
| Citation | 43 F.4th 702 |
| Parties | Adrean L. SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gary A. BOUGHTON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Kelly C. Holt, Rajeev Muttreja, Attorneys, Jones Day, New York, NY, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Jacob J. Wittwer, Attorney, Office of the Attorney General, Wisconsin Department of Justice, Madison, WI, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before Sykes, Chief Judge, and Scudder and Jackson-Akiwumi, Circuit Judges.
Adrean Smith confessed to participating in an armed robbery, but believes police obtained his confession in violation of the Fifth Amendment. On direct appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that Smith had not unequivocally invoked his right to cut off the interrogation that led to his confession. Our task is limited to deciding whether that conclusion reflected an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court's Miranda line of cases. We conclude that it did not, so we affirm the denial of Smith's habeas petition.
Sometime in November 2010, Milwaukee police pulled over a stolen van. Adrean Smith, the driver, made a break for it, but the officers eventually caught and arrested him. Back at the precinct, Detective Travis Guy questioned Smith about the van, which officers believed was involved in a series of armed robberies. Smith's conversation with Detective Guy spans three audio recordings.
The first recording begins with Detective Guy providing Smith the Miranda warnings, adding to the familiar list of rights an express statement that "if you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop the questioning or remain silent at any time you wish." Smith acknowledged that he understood all these rights, and agreed to speak with Detective Guy without a lawyer. All agree that Smith waived his Miranda rights knowingly and voluntarily.
The two then discussed the van for about ten minutes. Eventually, Detective Guy told Smith that the van was stolen. Smith admitted that he knew this, but claimed he did not steal the van himself—instead, he said, he got the van from someone named Joker.
After a short break, the second recording begins with more discussion of the van. Smith expressed remorse for having driven the stolen van, telling Detective Guy that he would pay the owners for any damages or needed repairs. This part of the conversation came to a close as follows:
The crucial exchange happened next. At this point, Detective Guy attempted to change the topic. He began describing a robbery:
Smith contends that his statements to this point constituted an unambiguous invocation of his right to remain silent, requiring Detective Guy to stop all questioning. But that is not what happened. Immediately after the exchange above, Detective Guy pressed on:
Detective Guy then transitioned back to questioning Smith about the van. That conversation lasted about three minutes, at which point Guy again asked Smith about a robbery on November 23. Smith maintained that he knew nothing about it. Over the next 20 minutes, Detective Guy attempted to convince Smith that police already had enough evidence to charge him with various robberies, and that it would be in his best interest to cooperate. At no point during this portion of the discussion did Smith indicate that he was uncomfortable or wished to terminate the interview.
Detective Guy then suggested that they take a break. About a half-hour later, the third recording begins with Smith confessing to a robbery.
State charges followed. Wisconsin authorities charged Smith with seven armed robberies and other offenses. Smith then moved to suppress his statements to Detective Guy. In Smith's view, his statement "I don't want to talk about this" expressed an unambiguous intention to cut off all further questioning, and Guy's failure to honor that request violated Miranda. After the trial court denied the motion, Smith pled guilty to three counts of armed robbery and one count of first-degree reckless injury, preserving his right to appeal. The court sentenced him to 25 years' initial confinement and 10 years' extended supervision.
Smith's appeal eventually made its way up to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which consolidated his case with that of his co-defendant, Carlos Cummings. See State v. Cummings , 357 Wis.2d 1, 850 N.W.2d 915 (2014). Drawing upon the Miranda line of cases, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Smith's statements were admissible, though it saw the case as "a relatively close call." Id. at 927. The court observed that, "standing alone, Smith's statements might constitute the sort of unequivocal invocation required to cut off questioning." Id. But placing the statements "[i]n the full context of his interrogation," the court found ambiguity in Smith's words that precluded a finding that he had invoked his Miranda rights and wished to end all further questioning. Id.
Reviewing the transcript of the interrogation, the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that it was "not clear" whether Smith's statements were "intended to cut off questioning about the robberies, cut off questioning about the minivan, or cut off questioning entirely." Id. The court also observed that Smith intermixed his possible invocations with exculpatory statements—like "I don't know nothing about this"—that it believed were "incompatible with a desire to cut off questioning." Id. at 928.
Also significant, in the court's view, were Smith's repeated references to the stolen van. By telling Detective Guy that he was "talking about this van," the court explained, Smith appeared to "indicate that [he] was willing to continue answering questions about the van," even if he was "unwilling, or perhaps unable, to answer questions about the robberies." Id. In this sense, the court reasoned, Smith's statements could be construed as "selective refusals to answer specific questions" rather than assertions of "an overall right to remain silent." Id. (quoting State v. Wright , 196 Wis.2d 149, 537 N.W.2d 134, 157 (Ct. App. 1995) (citing Fare v. Michael C. , 442 U.S. 707, 726–27, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979) )).
All told, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that Smith's statements were "subject to reasonable competing inferences," as they could be "interpreted as proclamations of innocence or selective refusals to answer questions." Id. (cleaned up). And this ambiguity led the court to conclude that Smith had not unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent. See id.
Three Justices dissented. Justice Prosser, joined by Justice Bradley, concluded that Detective Guy's inappropriate assertion that he had "a right" to ask about the robberies "undercut [Smith's] constitutional right to remain silent." Id. at 930 (Prosser, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). In his view, "[w]hen Smith said, ‘I don't want to talk about this,’ he unambiguously indicated that he did indeed not want to talk anymore." Id. at 931. Chief Justice Abrahamson, meanwhile, expressed concern that the majority "seem[ed] to assert that [Smith] did not mean what [he] said" and "f[ound] equivocation where ... none exists." Id. at 932–33 (Abrahamson, C.J., dissenting). She concluded that "a reasonable person would understand that ‘I don't want to talk about this’ ... mean[t] the conversation [wa]s at an end." Id. at 933.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court thus affirmed Smith's conviction and sentence.
With his avenues for state-court review exhausted, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b)(1)(A), Smith pursued habeas corpus relief in federal court. Invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), Smith argued that the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision reflected an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law—specifically, the Supreme...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. Jones
...comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington, 562 U.S. at 103; accord Smith v. Boughton, 43 F.4th 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2022). Further, a conviction may be upheld notwithstanding a constitutional error if it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt......
-
United States v. Mata
... ... A ... couple of hours afterward, Dobbs and Federal Bureau of ... Investigation Special Agent Joel Smith (Smith) interviewed ... Mata in Dobbs's vehicle. Dobbs advised Mata of his ... Miranda rights. Mata waived them, spoke to agents ... remain silent, the defendant's statements are considered ... as a whole.”); Smith v. Boughton , 43 F.4th ... 702, 710-11 (7th Cir. 2022) (analyzing defendant's ... statements in response to question posed) ... [ 33 ] Mot ... ...