# Garner v. Mitchell

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · March 3, 2009 · 557 F.3d 257

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9628791

## Case

- **Full name:** William GARNER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Betty MITCHELL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** March 3, 2009
- **Citations:** 557 F.3d 257; 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 4124; 2009 WL 510541
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Cole
- **Judges:** Boggs, Chief Judge Martin, Batchelder, Daughtrey, Moore, Cole, Clay, Gilman, Gibbons, Rogers, Sutton, McKeague, and Griffin, Circuit Judges
- **Cited by:** 61 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9628791

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that habeas relief was properly denied because the petitioner validly waived his Miranda rights, notwithstanding expert testimony that he could not have sufficiently understood the scope of Miranda’s protections
- stating that it is well established that mental capacity -14- is but one factor and holding that diminished capacity alone does not prevent a defendant from validly waiving his or her rights
- concluding that defendant's explanation of his conduct during interview indicated his ability to understand the Miranda warnings
- rejecting expert testimony relying on Grisso test results and outlining common deficiencies in the administration of Grisso tests

## Opinion text

COLE, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I concur in the outcome of the majority’s opinion but write separately because I disagree with the majority that the “primary focus” in determining whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent is the conduct of the interrogating officers. As stated in Part I of Judge Moore’s dissent, a waiver is not valid if the defendant’s lack of maturity, intelligence, or mental capacity prevented him from comprehending the warnings issued to him. This is the case even if a reasonable officer would have believed the defendant comprehended the warnings. The majority’s reliance on Rice v. Cooper, 148 F.3d 747 (7th Cir.1998) is misplaced. The requirement that a waiver be knowing and intelligent serves a broader purpose than deterrence of police misconduct. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 482-84 , 101 S.Ct. 1880 , 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).
Because I believe the district court did not err in finding Garner’s waiver knowing and intelligent under the facts of this case, I concur in the judgment only and would AFFIRM the decision of the district court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9628791. Public record. Not legal advice.