McCarthy v. Hernandez
Case Overview
The Supreme Court summarily reversed the Second Circuit's grant of federal habeas relief to Pedro Hernandez, convicted of kidnapping and murdering six-year-old Etan Patz in 1979. Hernandez confessed after hours of unwarned questioning, then gave a second Miranda-warned confession. At trial, the jury asked whether finding the first confession involuntary required disregarding the second; the judge said no. The Second Circuit held this violated Missouri v. Seibert. SCOTUS reversed 6-3, holding that Seibert concerned pretrial suppression motions — not jury instructions — and no clearly established federal law required a Seibert-based jury instruction. The decision reaffirms AEDPA's demanding standard for federal habeas relief.
Decision
Per Curiam · Per CuriamLegal Issues
BrynoDC Coverage 1 video
Opinion of the Court
The Facts
Etan Patz, six years old, disappeared on May 25, 1979, while walking to his school bus stop in Manhattan. In 2012, Pedro Hernandez confessed to luring Patz into a bodega basement, choking him, and disposing of the body. The confession came after approximately seven hours of questioning at the Camden County Prosecutor's Office without Miranda warnings. Officers then administered Miranda warnings and obtained a videotaped confession. The first trial ended in a hung jury. At the second trial in 2016, Hernandez was convicted of felony murder and kidnapping and sentenced to 25 years to life. During deliberations, the jury sent a note asking whether finding the first confession involuntary meant they must disregard the later confessions. The trial judge answered 'no.'
The Issue
Whether the state court's approval of the trial judge's jury instruction regarding successive confessions was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, Missouri v. Seibert under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1).
The Rules
Under 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1), a federal court may grant habeas relief only if the state court's decision was 'contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.'
Seibert weighed in on a police practice at the time to try to extract an inadmissible confession without a Miranda warning first, then issue Miranda warning, and then leverage that first confession to pressure a detainee to confess a second time. Was that second confession admissible? Four Justices in Seibert said that the second confession was only admissible if there was a break in the interrogation between the two, long enough for a person to realize they did not have to keep talking. The fifth tie breaking vote came from Justice Kennedy but he split the baby. He said that if the 2-step interrogation was unintentional, then he agreed with the majority. If it was deliberate, then the second confession would be generally inadmissible. He did allow for certain "curative" measures that could make the subsequent admission admissible. But the opinion said nothing about jury instructions or how juries should evaluate the voluntariness of successive confessions.
AEDPA relief requires a violation of 'clearly established' Supreme Court holdings. A rule that has never been announced by the Supreme Court cannot be 'clearly established' for AEDPA purposes, regardless of how logical the extension may seem. (Translation : The federal courts rarely step on state court toes in these cases)
The Application
New York State law allows the jury to make certain decisions about whether to include evidence, like a confession, for themselves. When the jury asked if they must disregard the confession, the judge said no. They had the option to disregard it, but they did not have to.
Kennedy's decision in Seibert was his alone. But the majority wouldn't have had their majority without it. So did it apply? The court says it doesn't matter for this case, so they'll apply it here because they get the same answer either way. But they suggest that they're not admitting that the rule applies across the board.
Even if the judge would have violated Seibert by deciding to include the later admissions by Hernandez, that's not what happened here. The jury made a decision to include that admission, and New York law allows them to do so. Seibert didn't apply to jury decisions, so the inclusion didn't violate Seibert.
Even if this were an on the fence case, the high hurdle of the AEDPA isn't met.
The Conclusion
**Reversed and remanded, 6-3.** The Supreme Court held that the Second Circuit exceeded AEDPA's limits by extending Missouri v. Seibert, a pretrial suppression ruling, to require a specific jury instruction about successive confessions. No clearly established federal law required the trial court to instruct the jury based on Seibert. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson would have denied certiorari.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support