Dyer v. Hornbeck, No. 10-15044 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CasePetitioner appealed from the district court's denial of her 28 U.S.C 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner contended that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent when it affirmed the trial court's decision to admit as evidence statements made by her during a station-house interview. Because the court concluded that fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether petitioner was "in custody" when she made the statements in dispute, the court affirmed the district court's denial of her application for habeas relief.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. Affirming the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging the admission of statements Dyer made to police, the panel concluded that fairminded jurists could disagree as to whether Dyer was “in custody” when she made certain disputed statements, and that the state court’s decision therefore was not an unreasonable application of the Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its progeny. Although the panel noted that Dyer’s consent to speak with police may have been influenced by her limited detention while officers executed a search warrant at her home, the panel ultimately concluded that the state court’s decision was objectively reasonable, where Dyer agreed to travel with detectives from outside her home to the police station to answer their questions, detectives permitted Dyer two unaccompanied breaks to the restroom during the interrogation, and one of the interviewing detectives told Dyer at the beginning of the interrogation that she was not under arrest and was free to leave at any time. Concurring in the judgment, Judge M. Smith explained that had he been sitting on direct appeal in place of the state court, he would have concluded that Dyer was entitled to Miranda protections, but applying AEDPA’s highly deferential standard, the state court’s decision was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.