Carl Thompson v. Patrick Keohane, Warden, et al. (516 U.S. 99)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided November 29, 1995 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 516 U.S. 99 · 116 S. Ct. 457
- Decided
- November 29, 1995
- Term
- October Term 1995
- Vote
- 7–2
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Vacated and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. During a two-hour, tape-recorded session at Alaska state trooper headquarters, petitioner Carl Thompson confessed that he killed his former wife. Thompson’s confession was placed in evidence at the ensuing Alaska state-court trial, and he was convicted of first-degree murder. Challenging his conviction in a federal habeas corpus proceeding, Thompson maintained that the Alaska troopers gained his confession without according him the warnings Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), requires: that he could remain silent; that anything he said could be used against him in court; and that he was entitled to an attorney, either retained or appointed. Miranda warnings are due only when a suspect interrogated by the police is “in custody.” The state trial and appellate courts determined that Thompson was not “in custody” when he confessed. The statute governing federal habeas corpus proceedings, 28 U. S. C. § 2254, directs that, ordinarily, state-court fact findings “shall be presumed to be correct.” § 2254(d). The question before this Court is whether the state-court determination that Thompson was not “in custody” when he confessed is a finding of fact warranting a presumption of correctness, or a matter of law calling for independent review in federal court. We hold that the issue whether a suspect is “in custody,” and…
Excerpt of a 31,962-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.