Sixth Circuit: James McKinney v. Bonita Hoffner

Habeas, AEDPA, Miranda


State Supreme Court's holdings -- that a facially equivocal statement was not interrogation and that deft's invocation of right to counsel followed shortly thereafter by an expressed willingness to talk was not a Miranda violation -- might have been made by a fair-minded jurist.

Dissent doesn't account for AEDPA default.

Dissent -- analysis of second utterance should be considered solely as waiver of expressed invocation.


James McKinney v. Bonita Hoffner