Antwion Thompson v. D. Runnel
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by Judge IKUTA; Concurrence by Judge GOODWIN; Dissent by Judge BERZON.
OPINION
IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
This appeal requires us to determine whether the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), when it denied Antwion Thompson’s motion to suppress his multiple confessions to the murder of his girlfriend. To resolve this issue, we must first determine whether we measure the state court’s opinion against Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985), which was decided…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Cullen v. PinholsterSupreme Court of the United States · 2011
- Teague v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Oregon v. ElstadSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Woodford v. VisciottiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by125 opinions
- Robert Murray v. Dora SchriroCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- People of Michigan v. Raymond Curtis CarpMichigan Supreme Court · 2014
- Planned Parenthood of Arizona v. William HumbleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2014
- Reynaldo Ayala v. Kevin ChappellCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
- Hooks Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Kitsap Tenant Support Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
120 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.