Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Arie Robert REDEKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D. W. NEVEN; Attorney General for the State of Nevada, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 17-16917

Decided: March 21, 2019

Before: SCHROEDER, O’SCANNLAIN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Jason F. Carr, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender's Office Las Vegas, Las Vegas, NV, for Petitioner-Appellant Amanda C. Sage, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGNV - Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, Heidi Parry Stern, AGNV - Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Las Vegas, NV, for Respondents-Appellees


Petitioner Arie Redeker was convicted in Nevada state court of second degree murder and now appeals the district court’s denial of his habeas petition after it found Redeker was not in custody for the purposes of a possible Miranda violation, and that even if Redeker had been in custody, he failed to establish any constitutional violation.

As a preliminary matter, the Government argues that the Nevada Supreme Court’s decision was entitled to deference under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (“AEDPA”). We need not decide that issue because the district court, exercising de novo review, decided there was no custodial interrogation, so the standard of review is not material in this case. Also, we need not decide whether Redeker was in custody during the hours he spent in his front yard as argued by Redeker, or under arrest in the police station, as urged by the dissenting opinion in the Nevada Supreme Court, because even assuming there was a Miranda violation before Redeker was given his Miranda rights, there was no prejudice.

Redeker voluntarily admitted to the crime after being administered his Miranda warnings. Detective Hardy took the necessary steps to ensure that Redeker understood the import and effect of the Miranda warning. See Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600, 622, 124 S.Ct. 2601, 159 L.Ed.2d 643 (2004) (Kennedy, J., concurring); see also United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1148, 1157–58 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion sets forth the controlling rule in Seibert). Redeker’s unambiguous, affirmative answers demonstrate he recognized the import and effect of the Miranda warning. See Reyes v. Lewis, 833 F.3d 1001, 1027 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, the district court correctly concluded that Redeker’s post-Miranda statements were admissible because Detective Hardy did not deliberately withhold the Miranda warning, and Redeker voluntarily admitted to the crime. See Williams, 435 F.3d at 1158.


Copied to clipboard