McCONNELL ADAMS v. KURT JONES, Warden

*The Hon. Glen M. Williams, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting
by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 05a0701n.06
Filed: August 11, 2005
04-1238
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
McCONNELL ADAMS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
KURT JONES, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: KEITH and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, * District Judge.
PER CURIAM. The petitioner, McConnell Adams, is a Michigan state prisoner
serving a life sentence for first-degree murder. After exhausting his direct appeals and his
post-conviction remedies in the state courts, he filed this petition for habeas relief in the
district court, contending that he was denied his Fifth Amendment right to counsel when,
during interrogation, the police did not scrupulously honor his request to have an attorney
present during questioning and continued the interrogation despite his invocation of the
right to remain silent. The district court reviewed the ruling by the Michigan Court of
Appeals that the petitioner had not unequivocally asserted a right to counsel or a right to
remain silent and held, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), that the state court’s conclusion

-- 1 of 2 --

04-1238
Adams v. Jones
- 2 -
was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as
determined by the United States Supreme Court. The district court therefore denied relief,
after setting out an extensive – and, we conclude, a correct – analysis of the facts of the
case and the applicable federal law.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on
appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in
denying habeas relief to the petitioner. Because the reasons why judgment should be
entered for the respondent have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of
a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by
that court in its order and opinion dated December 4, 2003.

-- 2 of 2 --