Cook v. Kernan, No. 17-17257 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his California state conviction for three counts of first degree murder. Petitioner claimed that the state's reliance on his confession prejudicially violated his constitutional rights.
The panel applied the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) standard of review and held that petitioner was not entitled to relief because the state habeas court could have reasonably concluded that petitioner's confession was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. In this case, the California Supreme Court had a reasonable basis for finding that petitioner's waiver was knowing and intelligent, and that his confession was not coerced and involuntary. Finally, the panel held that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the issue of the voluntariness of his confession because he failed to timely develop in state court the factual basis for his claim that he was threatened at gunpoint.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Walter Joseph Cook, III,’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging his California state conviction for three counts of first-degree murder, in an appeal in which Cook claimed, inter alia, that the state’s reliance on his confession prejudicially violated his constitutional rights. Cook asserted that his statements to police were unlawfully obtained in two ways: that he was unable to understand his Miranda rights from the outset of his interrogation and thus did not knowingly and intelligently waive them, and that his confessions were coerced based on the totality of the circumstances as established by the existing record. Applying AEDPA deference, the panel held that: • based on the facts that Cook was repeatedly warned of his Miranda rights, expressly acknowledged the warnings, and offered coherent and knowing answers to the officers’ questions, the California Supreme Court had a reasonable basis to reject Cook’s challenge to the validity of his Miranda waiver. • the California Supreme Court had a reasonable basis to conclude that Cook’s confession was voluntary COOK V. KERNAN 3 because Cook fails to show how this conclusion under the totality of the circumstances is “inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of the [United States] Supreme Court.” The panel held that Cook is not entitled under AEDPA to an evidentiary hearing into his allegation that an officer threatened him at gunpoint during his interview, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his request for one, because his failure to develop the factual basis for the claim in state court proceedings was due to his own lack of diligence. The panel addressed remaining claims in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition. In a concurring opinion, Judge Callahan wrote that if the panel had needed to reach the question of whether Cook was prejudiced by the admission of his statements, she would agree with the district court that the California Supreme Court could have reasonably denied Cook’s claim on the ground that any error was harmless. Dissenting, Judge Murguia disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that the California Supreme Court could have reasonably denied habeas relief on the basis that Cook (1) knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights; and (2) suffered no prejudice from the improper admission of his unlawfully obtained confession and other incriminating statements. 4 COOK V. KERNAN
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.