ERIC ADAM GRUENINGER v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Harris, Filed Feb. 9, 2016,
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Raising objection improperly was not a “tactical” decision; failure to object properly to confession in violation of Miranda was constitutionally deficient

Defendant was arrested for sexual abuse of his daughter. On being Mirandized, he stated “[t]hese are felonies, I need an [a]ttorney” and questioning ceased. When further charges were obtained, an officer once again visited defendant and mirandized him, at which point defendant gave a statement.

Federal Habeas – 28 USC 2254 limits federal habeas relief of ‘adjudicated on the merits’ state-court proceedings unless the state court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law OR rested on an unreasonable determination of the facts

Federal Habeas – 28 USC 2254 – “Look through” doctrine allows federal court to ignore unexplained orders by higher court and examine rationale of lower court

Miranda – Invocation – Citing Edwards – Once a suspect invokes his right to counsel, he is not subject to further interrogation by the police unless he initiates

Miranda – asking of questions about the substance of a case constitutes “interrogation” for Edwards
purposes

Miranda – Statement by defendant after being read his Miranda rights that “[t]hese are felonies, I need an [a]ttorney” was sufficient to invoke Miranda right to counsel. The statement is not ambiguous.

Strickland – Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Failure to file a motion to suppress under Strickland must involve:
Deficient Performance – motion must have had “some substance”
Prejudice – motion would likely have been granted AND reasonable probability that granting the motion would have affected the outcome

Strickland – Ineffective Assistance – Failure to raise an issue may be tactical; raising it improperly is not tactical