Samuel Yenawine v. JOHN MOTLEY, Warden

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0720n.06
No. 08-5443
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL YENAWINE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
JOHN MOTLEY, Warden
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
C O U R T F O R T H E
WESTERN DISTRICT OF
KENTUCKY
BEFORE: DAUGHTREY, GILMAN, McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Upon learning that he was under indictment, Samuel Yenawine turned
himself in to police in Indiana and was extradited to Louisville, Kentucky. During interrogation,
Yenawine told police officers, “I might need to speak with my lawyer about whether I should talk
with you.” Yenawine then named his attorney and produced his attorney’s business card, which
included printed text that stated, among other things, that he would not answer questions without his
lawyer present. The police officers then mistakenly informed Yenawine that his attorney could not
represent him due to a conflict, and Yenawine proceeded to give a recorded confession. This
confession was used at trial over Yenawine’s objection, and he was convicted of arson and various
other crimes. The Kentucky Supreme Court reversed the arson conviction on other grounds, but
upheld the remaining convictions, holding that Yenawine’s confession was admissible because
Yenawine did not make an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel. Yenawine v.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 08-5443
Yenawine v. Motley
- 2 -
Commonwealth, No. 2003-SC-0283-MR, 2005 WL 629007, at *3 (Ky. Aug. 25, 2005) (citing
Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462 (1994)). On August 22, 2006, Yenawine filed a petition
for writ of habeas corpus. Under the relevant subsection, the writ should be granted only if the state-
court proceedings “resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The district court denied Yenawine’s petition, reasoning that the
state-court decision was not an unreasonable application of Davis. Yenawine v. Motley,
No. 3:06CV- 413-R, 2008 WL 347820, at *8 (W.D. Ky. Feb. 7, 2008). This appeal followed.
We conduct de novo review of a district court’s denial of habeas corpus. Abela v. Martin,
380 F.3d 915, 924 (6th Cir. 2004). In Abela, this court granted habeas relief to a petitioner who gave
a statement that was used at trial and solicited under facts that are strikingly similar to those of this
case: (1) the petitioner was under police interrogation when he stated, “[M]aybe I should talk to an
attorney”; (2) the petitioner named his attorney and gave the police officer his attorney’s business
card; and (3) shortly thereafter, the police continued questioning the petitioner and he gave a
statement. Id. at 919. The court held that the state-court decision admitting Abela’s statement at
trial was contrary to clearly established federal law. Id. at 927. Abela thus controls the outcome in
this case. We therefore must hold that the state-court decision allowing the use of Yenawine’s
statement at trial was contrary to clearly established federal law. Accordingly, we REVERSE the
district court’s judgment and REMAND to the district court with instructions to grant the writ of
habeas corpus, unless the state elects to retry Yenawine within ninety days of the date of this
opinion’s entry.

-- 2 of 2 --