Mays v. Clark, No. 12-17189 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole, appealed the denial of his petition for habeas relief. The court concluded that the California Court of Appeal’s ruling that no Miranda violation occurred was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent. In this case, the state court unreasonably applied Miranda v. Arizona and Davis v. United States by concluding that petitioner's invocation of the right to counsel was ambiguous or equivocal. The state court also contravened or unreasonably applied Smith v. Illinois when it used petitioner’s post-invocation responses to cast doubt on the clarity of his request for counsel. The court concluded, however, that the state court's finding that any Miranda violation was harmless was not unreasonable in light of a witness's statements. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Darious Antoine Mays’s habeas corpus petition challenging his conviction for first-degree murder. The panel held that the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), when it concluded that Mays’s invocation of the right to counsel was ambiguous or equivocal. The panel also held that the California Court of Appeal contravened or unreasonably applied Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984), when it used Mays’s post-invocation responses to cast doubt on the clarity of his request for counsel. The panel held that although Mays’s inculpatory statements were therefore improperly admitted at trial, the California Court of Appeal’s harmlessness determination was not objectively unreasonable, and that under the deferential AEDPA standard of review, Mays is not entitled to habeas relief. MAYS V. CLARK 3
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.