Ervin v. Bowersox, No. 17-1743 (8th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254(d) to petitioner, who was convicted of statutory sodomy and sentenced to 30 years in prison. The court held that the Missouri state courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when they held that the admission of, and the state's reference to, the entirety of petitioner's post-Miranda interview did not constitute a violation under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976). The panel reasoned that the playing of the interview and the references to it were not designed to draw meaning from petitioner's eventual assertion of his right to remain silent. Furthermore, the determination by the Missouri Court of Appeals that any error was harmless did not constitute an unreasonable determination of the facts, and thus any error in admitting the video did not have a substantial and injurious effect on the verdict, foreclosing any entitlement to habeas relief.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Shepherd and Erickson, Circuit Judges] Prisoner case - Habeas. Missouri courts did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when they held that admission of, and the state's reference to, the entirety of Ervin's post-Miranda interview did not constitute a violation under Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), because the playing of interview and the references to it were not designed to draw meaning from Ervin's eventual assertion of his right to remain silent; nor did the Missouri courts err in determining that even if a Doyle violation had occurred, the error was harmless in the light of the overwhelming evidence of Ervin's guilt.
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.