Robin Root v. Jeremy Howard, Warden

Under Missouri v. Seibert, 542 US 600 (2004), a mid-stream Miranda warning may not be effective. This was a plurality opinion and the Circuits are split 9 to 2 about whether Marks v. United States, 430 US 188 (1977) means that Justice Kennedy’s concurrence should control the analysis or whether the four-Justice plurality should control. The first question presented is: Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals misapplied Federal precedent when it relied on Oregon v. Elstad, 470 US 298 (1985) to admit post-Miranda admissions as opposed to excluding those admissions based on Seibert and whether the Circuit split should be resolved in favor of Marks? The second question presented is: In Cardwell v. Taylor, 461 US 571 (1983), this Court held that custodial statements that were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be grounds for habeas relief, but relief would be available if the statements were involuntary and were thus obtained in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This Court remanded so that a determination about voluntariness could be made. In the instant case, the Sixth Circuit neither remanded nor addressed the Petitioner’s Fifth Amendment claim independently. Rather the Sixth Circuit opined that the Fourth and Fifth Amendment claims were “inextricably intertwined” and therefore, under Cardwell, habeas relief was not available.