Garcia v. Long, 808 F.3d 771 (9th Cir. 2015)

There is something unusual about this case. It was initially decided on an unknown earlier date but the published date is in December, 2015.

The facts in the case are allegations of a sex violation to a minor who testified.  The prosecution also introduced a lengthy confession by the defendant. The jury convicted. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, the California Supreme Court denied review, as did the federal district court on habeas.  The defendant appealed to the 9th Circuit..

The argument applied to the Miranda warnings given by officers to the defendant pre trial, and its judicial interpretation of the response by the defendant.  The legal issue was another squabble over a rule invented by the Supreme Court. The 9th Circuit panel, as usual, ignored the two California courts, the federal district court and AEDPA.  This is another case where two jurisdictions try the case-state and federal.  The 9th Circuit demonstrates no deference to the state as required by the Supreme Court and, of course, the defendant goes free.

The defendant testified in court comparable to his confession to officers. Now he is  released, the minor will have to testify again and endure the experience-if she want to go to court again-at a re trial. As of July 9,2016 state attorney general Harris has done nothing.

Another state case reversed by the 9th Circuit “we know better” on habeas corpus, and that federal  decision should be appealed to  the Supreme  Court.

The purpose of the Miranda rule is to avoid involuntary confessions.  Instead, the courts argue over the language used when the defendant raises no issue of compulsory confession initiated by police. The public pays a heavy price for this rule.