Hernandez v. Holland, No. 11-55337 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner sought habeas corpus relief from his state murder conviction on the ground that his right against self-incrimination under Miranda v. Arizona was violated. At issue was whether a mid-trial conversation between a court bailiff and petitioner constituted an interrogation that must be preceded by a Miranda warning. The trial court concluded that there was no Miranda violation because there was no interrogation. The court concluded that the California Court of Appeal did not unreasonably apply Miranda or its Supreme Court progeny. Despite the Warden's failure to brief the issue, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's, 28 U.S.C. 2254(d), deferential standard of review still applied. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition alleging a violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), based on a mid- trial conversation between petitioner and a court bailiff. During a recess in his trial, petitioner had a conversation with a court bailiff during which he made inculpatory statements about the details of the crime. The trial court ruled that the conversation was not an “interrogation” and permitted the bailiff to testify to the jury. The panel held that this determination did not involve an unreasonable application of Miranda or its Supreme Court progeny. The panel also held that, despite respondent’s failure to brief the issue, the deferential standard of review under the Anti- Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act cannot be waived.
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.