v.
MICHAELA.DITTMANN,
RespondentAppellant.
____________________
AppealfromtheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe
EasternDistrictofWisconsin.
No.1:14cv01310WilliamE.Duffin,MagistrateJudge.
____________________
ARGUEDFEBRUARY14,2017DECIDEDJUNE22,2017
____________________
BeforeROVNER,WILLIAMS,andHAMILTON,CircuitJudges.
ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Teresa Halbach disappeared on
HalloweenDay,2005.Herconcernedfamilyandfriendscon
tactedlawenforcementaftershedidnotshowupatthepho
tography studio where she worked and her voice mailbox
wasfull.Lawenforcementofficersquicklyzeroedinonthe
Avery Auto Salvage yard in Two Rivers, Wisconsin, as the
lastplaceshewasknowntohavegone,and,inparticular,on
StevenAvery,thesonofthesalvageyardownerwholived
2 No.163397
inatrailerontheproperty.Earlierintheday,Averycalled
Auto Trader magazine, for whom Halbach sometimes took
photographs, to request that she take photographs of a
minivan that he wished to sell in its magazine. Eventually
thepolicebegantosuspectthatAverys16yearoldnephew,
BrendanDassey,whoalsolivedontheproperty,mighthave
beenawitnessorhadinformationaboutHalbachsmurder.
After a few preliminary conversations, the investigators
wereconcernedenoughtocallDasseyintothepolicestation
forafullinterrogation.Aftermanyhoursofquestioningand
interrogation spread over several days, Dassey confessed
thathe,alongwithAvery,hadrapedandbrutallymurdered
Halbachandthenburnedherbodyinanonsitefirepit.By
thetimeofthetrial,Dasseyhadrecantedhisconfession,and
the State had failed to find any physical evidence linking
himtothecrime,buthewasconvictedandsentencedtolife
in prison nonetheless. After appeals and postconviction
proceedingsinthestatecourtfailedtobringhimrelief.The
statecourtonpostconvictionreviewstatedthegeneralized
standard for evaluating the voluntariness of a confession
totality of the circumstancesbutfailed to note how that ju
venileconfessionrequiresmorecareandfailedtoapplythe
standard at all. Dassey filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpusinthedistrictcourt,claimingthathedidnotreceive
effective assistance of counsel and that his confession was
not voluntarily given. The district court, concluding as we
do that the state court did not apply the proper standard,
granted the writ. Despite the limited role of a federal court
onhabeasreviewwemustaffirm.Ifastatecourtcanevade
all federal review by merely parroting the correct Supreme
Courtlaw,thenthewritofhabeascorpusismeaningless.
No.163397 3
I.
Thefactsrelatedtothiscaseareexpansiveandconvolut
ed, and those facts have been reported in various iterations
throughout the decisions of the state courts of Wisconsin
andinthedistrictcourt.Weborrowheavilyfromthedistrict
courtandreportjustthosefactsneededforpurposesofthis
appealandreferthereadertothefulldistrictcourtopinion,
Dasseyv.Dittmann,201F.Supp.3d963(E.D.Wisc.2016)for
furtherdetails.
Teresa Halbach was a 25yearold summa cum laude
graduateoftheUniversityofWisconsinGreenBaywhowas
runningherownphotographybusiness.Shewasthesecond
oldest of five children in a tightknit family, and lived in a
farmhouse a quarter mile from her parents. On October 31,
2005,shephotographedthreevehiclesforAutoTraderMag
azine. She took the third and final series of photographs at
the Avery salvage yard. She never returned home. Her life
andcareerwerecutshortbyaheinousandsenselesscrime.
Her brutally burnedbodyprovidedfewcluesabouther
death, but other investigative methods provided the state
court with the following facts. Halbach had taken photo
graphs at the Avery property on five prior occasions, and
AverycalledAutoTraderthemorningofOctober31andre
quested that the same girl who had been out here before
comeandtakepicturesofavehiclethatwasforsale.Justbe
fore2:30p.m.,HalbachcontactedAutoTraderMagazineand
saidthatshewasonherwaytotheAveryproperty.Some
time around 2:30 or 2:45 p.m., a neighbor of Averys saw
Halbachphotographingaminivanandthenproceedtoward
Averysresidence.Theneighborlefthomeatabout3:00p.m.
and observed Halbachs 1999 Toyota RAV4 still outside
4 No.163397
thevehiclecargoarea,thedriversseat,thefrontpassengers
seat, and the floor next to the center console. AverysDNA
wasalsodetectedonthehoodlatch.
TheinvestigationofAverycontinuedasheawaitedtrial.
Investigatorsbeganinterviewingfamilymembers,including
Dassey and Averys niece, Kayla Avery. Kayla stated that
hercousinBrendanDasseyhadbeenactinguplately,that
he was staring into space and crying uncontrollably, and
that he had lost roughly forty pounds. Dassey later ex
plainedthattheweightlosshadbeenpartofanefforttofind
agirlfriendandthatthetearshadbeenoverabreakup.But
basedonKaylasinterview,andthefactthatanotherwitness
reported seeing Dassey at the bonfire with Avery around
7:30or7:45p.m.onOctober31,investigatorsdecidedthatit
wasnecessarytoreinterviewDassey.
Calumet County Sheriffs investigator, Mark Wiegert,
and Wisconsin Department of Justice Special Agent, Tom
Fassbender, travelled to Dasseys high school on February
27,2006,and,withouthisparentsknowledge,metwithhim
inaconferenceroomforaboutanhour.Dasseywasasoph
omore who received special education services, and whose
IQ hadbeen measuredatvarious timesbetween 74 and81,
falling fairly far below an average range of intelligence. On
theWechslerscaleofintelligence,Dasseysscoremeantthat
90% of adolescents his age would have performed intellec
tuallybetterthanhedid,andontheKaufmanscale,87%of
adolescentshisagewouldhaveperformedbetter.R.1922at
4849. A psychological expert at trial described Dassey as
highly suggestible, docile, withdrawn, with extreme social
anxiety and social avoidant characteristics, and more sug
gestiblethan95%ofthepopulation.
6 No.163397
Atthatfirstinterviewwiththeofficers,Dasseysaidthat
Averyhadaskedhimtohelploadtiresandanoldvanseat
ontoabonfirenearAverystrailerontheeveningofOctober
31,butthathesawnothingunusualbeforegoinghome.Be
cause of the poor quality of the cassette tape recording of
that interview, the prosecuting attorney requested that the
investigators reinterview Dassey to create a better record.
Wiegert and Fassbender made arrangements to interview
Dasseyagainlaterthatsamedayatthelocalpolicestation.
WiegertandFassbendercontactedDasseysmother,Bar
bara Janda, who met them at the school. The investigators
drove Dassey and Janda to the police station. According to
WiegertandFassbender,Jandadeclinedtheiroffertobepre
sentfortheinterviewandinsteadremainedinawaitingarea
of the police station. R. 1919 at 71. According to Janda, the
investigatorsdiscouragedher from attendingtheinterview.
R. 1930 at 155. This second February 27 interview, which
lasted less than an hour, began with a long monologue by
Fassbender, who sat down with Dassey and said, some
peoplebacktheresayno,welljustchargehim.Wesaidno,
letustalktohim,givehimtheopportunitytocomeforward
with the information that he has, and get it off his chest.
R.1924at5.Then,Fassbendersetforthhisroleintheinves
tigation and made what Dassey characterizes as the first of
manyassurancesandpromises:
MarkandI,yeah,werecops,wereinvestiga
tors and stuff like that, but Imnot right now.
Imafatherthathasakidyouragetoo.Theres
1AllrecordcitesaretotherecordintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor
theEasternDistrictofWisconsin,CaseNo.14CV1310.
No.163397 7
FassbendermetwithDasseyagainthateveninginahotel
room where Dassey told Fassbender, in an unrecorded in
terview, that he had stained his pants with bleach as he
helped clean the floor of Averys garage. Wiegert testified
that after those interviews he thought Dassey might have
had some culpability in the criminal disposal of Halbachs
corpse.R.1912at1821;R.1930at38.
On March 1, 2006, the officers returned to Dasseys
schoolforafourthinterview.TheyreadDasseyhisMiranda
rights,andheagainagreedtospeakwiththem.Wiegertand
Fassbender first drove Dassey to his house on the Avery
propertytoretrievethebleachstainedjeansandthendrove
himfortyfiveminutesawaytotheManitowocCountySher
iffs Department. The State asserted that it asked Janda for
permissiontointerviewherson.R.1919at12;1930at156.
Janda claimed that the investigators never asked her if she
wantedtobepresentfortheinterview.R.1930at156.This
fourthinterviewproducedaconfessionthatbecamethekey
evidenceagainstDasseyathistrial.
TheMarch1interviewlastedthreehours,withonehalf
hourbreak,andthenasecondfiftyminutebreakattheend
beforeDasseywastakenintocustody.Theinterrogationwas
conductedinwhatisknownasasoftroomintheSheriffs
Departmentone with a small couch, two soft chairs and
lamps. Dassey was offered food, drink, and access to a re
stroom at the start and at various times throughout the in
terview. The investigators reminded Dassey of his Miranda
rights,andtheinterviewwasaudioandvideorecorded.No
adultwaspresentonDasseysbehalf.
Dasseys March 1 confession unfolded as follows in this
very brief summary: Dassey first admitted only to helping
No.163397 9
AverycleansomefluidfromthegaragefloorafterAverycut
a line of the vehicle on which he was working. Eventually,
after much encouragement, the story evolved to one in
whichDasseysawHalbachsalreadydead,clothed,andtied
upbodyinthebackofherRAV4andhelpedAveryputher
bodyinabonfire.Inthenextiteration,hereportedhearing
screaming at Averys house as he brought Avery his mail.
HeenteredandfoundasweatyAveryandsawHalbachna
ked and handcuffed to Averys bed. Finally, Dassey admit
ted to a horrific series of crimesraping Halbach, cutting
herthroat,tyingherup,cuttingherhair,andthentakingher
tothegaragewhereAveryshotherintheheadandthetwo
ofthemdisposedofherbodyinthefire.Althoughwereport
the evolution of his confession linearly, it is far from that.
Dasseysstorychanges;hebacktracks;officerstrytopinhim
downontimeframesanddetails,buttheyarelikewaveson
thesand.EventheStatehastroubletellingitsversionofthe
timeline of the story in any cogent manner due to the fact
thatitchangedwitheachretelling.SeeBriefofRespondent
Appellantat9,n.3.AlthoughtheStatepresentsacogentsto
rylineinitsbriefonappeal,itdoessobypickingandchoos
ingpiecesfromvariousversionsofDasseysrecitations.
At the very end of the confession, Dasseys mother en
teredtheinterrogationroomandthefollowingexchangeoc
curredaftertheofficerslefttheroom:
Brendan: Igotaquestion?
BarbJanda: Whatsthat?
Brendan: Whatd happen if he says some
thing his storys different? Whhe says he, he
admitstodoingit?
10 No.163397
BarbJanda: Whatdoyoumean?
Brendan: Like if his storys like different,
likeIneverdidnothinorsomethin.
BarbJanda: Didyou?Huh?
Brendan: Notreally.
BarbJanda: Whatdoyoumeannotreally?
Brendan: Theygottomyhead.
R.1925at148.Atthatpoint,oneoftheofficersreenteredthe
roomandtheconversationended.Wewillfillintheremain
ingdetailsofthisconfessionaswediscussthevoluntariness
ofit,velnon,inthefollowingsections.
AlmosttheentiretyoftheStatescaserestedonthesein
terviewsandonephonecallbetweenDasseyandhismother
after his final police interview which we describe below.
There wasnophysicalevidence linkingDassey to themur
der of Halbachinvestigators did not find any of Dasseys
DNA or blood on any of the many objects that were men
tioned in his confessionthe knives in Averys house, gun,
handcuffs,bed,RAV4,key,orautomotivedolly.
After his arrest, the state public defenders office ap
pointedprivateattorneyLenKachinskytorepresentDassey.
KachinskymetwithDasseyonMarch10,2006.Dasseytold
Kachinskythathewasinnocent,thathisconfessionwasnot
true,andthathewantedtotakeapolygraphtest.Afterthis
meeting, despite Dasseys claims of innocence, Kachinsky
spoketothemediaanddescribedDasseyassad,remorseful,
and overwhelmed. The media reported that Kachinsky
blamedAveryforleadingDasseydownthecriminalpath
andsaidthathehadnotruledoutapleadeal.R.1939at4,
No.163397 11
911.Overthenextfewdays,nearlyallofKachinskyswork
on Dasseys case involved communicating with the local
media, during which appearances he stated that there is
quite frankly, no defense, and that all of the investigation
techniques were standard and legitimate, despite the fact
thatKachinskyhadnotyetwatchedtherecordedpolicein
terviewR.1926at142,14445,153,170.DuringeachofKa
chinskys media appearances he indicated that Dassey was
guiltyandwouldlikelyacceptaplea.Kachinskytestifiedat
a postconviction relief hearing that one of his reasons for
making these statements to the media was so that Dassey
and his family would become accustomed to the idea that
Brendan might take a legal option that they dont like.
R.1926at13637.Eventuallytheprosecutorsentanemailto
Kachinsky expressing concern about the pretrial media ap
pearances and referred Kachinsky to the relevant rules of
ethicsforattorneys.
In the meantime, Kachinsky hired investigator Michael
OKelly, with whom he was not familiar, to help in the in
vestigationofthecaseandtoconductthepolygraphexami
nationthatDasseyhadrequested.DespiteDasseysclaimsof
innocence, Kachinsky and OKelly proceeded on the as
sumption that Dassey would plead guilty and assist the
prosecution in Averys case. OKelly testified at the state
postconviction hearing that his goal was to uncover infor
mation and evidence that would bolster the prosecutions
caseagainstAveryevenifthatevidencewouldtendtoin
culpateBrendan,R.1929at47,andthathisemotionssid
ed with what happened to Teresa Halbach. Id. at 96. Ka
chinsky and OKelly even sent information to the prosecu
tionaboutthelocationofaknifetheythoughthadbeenused
in the crime, based on what they had cajoled from Dassey,
12 No.163397
butsearchespursuanttothosetipsdidnotproduceanyevi
dence.
To effectuate his plan to garner Dasseys cooperation in
Averys prosecution, Kachinsky decided that the investiga
tor,OKelly,shouldreinterviewDasseyandcompelhimto
confessyetagain,andshoulddosoafterthetrialjudgede
niedthemotiontosuppresshisMarch1interview,whenhe
wouldbemostvulnerable.R.1926at244.
ShortlybeforeinterviewingDassey,OKellywrotetoKa
chinskyandreferredtotheAveryfamilyascriminalsand
asserted that family members engaged in incestuous sexual
conductandhadahistoryofstalkingwomen.R.1929at93.
Hecontinued,Thisistrulywherethedevilresidesincom
fort. I can find no good in any member. These people are
pureevil.Id.OKellyquotedafriendashavingsaid,This
isaonebranchfamilytree.Cutthistreedown.Weneedto
endthegenepoolhere.Id.at94.OKellythoughtthatDas
seysclaimofinnocencewasanunrealisticfantasythat
was influenced by his family. R. 1929 at 83, 84, 8688. On
OKellys recommendation, Kachinsky canceled a planned
visitwithDasseybecauseDasseyneedstobealone.R.19
26at24849.OKellysaid,Heneedstotrustmeandthedi
rectionthatIsteerhiminto.R.1926at249.
OKellybeganhisinterviewwithDassey,whichhevideo
recorded without permission from Dasseys parents, by
pointing to what he said were the polygraph examination
resultsonalaptopcomputerscreenandaskingDasseyifhe
could read them. R. 1938 at 1. Despite having previously
toldKachinskythattheresultsofthepolygraphexamination
No.163397 13
wereinconclusiveR.1926at210,2OKellytoldDasseythat
the polygraph indicated deception and that the probability
of deception was 98%. R. 1938 at 1. When Dassey asked
what that meant, OKelly asked what he thought it meant.
R.1938at1.Dasseyresponded,ThatIpassedit?R.1938
at 1. It says deception indicated, OKelly responded, em
phasizingdeception.Id.Afteralongpause,Dasseyasked,
ThatIfailedit[?]Id.
OKellyproceededtoharangueDasseywithphotographs
and personal effects of Halbach, threaten him with life in
prison, and badger him to admit that he was sorry. Dassey
continuedtoprofesshisinnocence,insisting,Idontknow
[if Im sorry], because I didnt do anything, to which
OKellyresponded,Ifyourenotsorry,Icanthelpyou
Doyouwanttospendtherestofyourlifeinprison?Youdid
a very bad thing. R. 1938 at 2. Dassey responded, Yeah,
butIwasonlythereforthefirethough.Id.
2 Dasseys lawyer hired an expert who was prepared to testify that the
polygraph showed no deception, but the state trial judge excluded any
testimony about the polygraph. R. 1930 at 231233. The reliability and
validityofpolygraphevidenceishotlydebatedinthelegalandscientific
community.UnitedStatesv.Scheffer,523U.S.303,309(1998).Thereisnot
asetstandardofscoringforPolygraphexaminations.Insomenumerical
scoring systems, the scores range from 3 for a dramatic reaction to a
controlquestionto3forthesametypeofreactiontoarelevantquestion.
Noticeablebutsmallerreactionsarescored1or1.Alackofasignificant
reaction is scored 0. Total scores of 6 or higher indicate truthfulness,
while6orlowerindicatedeception.Scoresthatfallinbetweenarecon
sideredinconclusive.PaulC.Giannelli,PolygraphEvidence:PostDaubert,
49HastingsL.J.895,909(1998).Therecorddoesnotreflectwhatsystem
OKellyusedtoscoreDasseyspolygraphexamination.R.1929at2122.
14 No.163397
These facts did not come to light until the state post
convictionhearing.
The May 13 interrogation that grew from the poisoned
tree of the OKelly interrogation was neither used nor dis
cussed at trial, but the trial court never made any explicit
ruling on its admissibility. At oral argument the State was
unable to tell this court why the May 13 interview was not
used at trial, but we will assume that based on what the
State concedes was unacceptable representation by Ka
chinsky,theStaterecognizedthattheMay13interviewhad
been irreparably poisoned. But the May 13 phone call that
resulted from the May 13 interrogationthe phone call the
police had urged Dassey to make to his mother on the rec
ordedjailtelephonelinewasusedthreetimesattrial:once
tocrossexamineDassey;oncetocrossexamineDasseysex
pert psychologist, and in closing argument to undermine
Dasseysalibi.
At trial, the centerpiece of the prosecutions case was
DasseysMarch1confession,inwhichheadmittedtopartic
ipatingintheallegedsexualassaultandmurderofHalbach
as well as the disposal of her body. Dasseys defense was
thathisconfessionwasnottrueorvoluntary,thatheaccept
ed his uncles invitation to a bonfire and then helped him
gather items from the salvage yard to burn before helping
Averycleanupsomethingthatlookedlikeautomotivefluid
from the garage floor, staining his pants with bleach in the
process. Dassey testified that he did not know why he had
said the things that he did to the police investigators and
thathe thought that theinvestigatorshadpromised thathe
wouldnotgotojailnomatterwhathetoldthem.
No.163397 17
3DasseyandAveryweretriedseparately.
18 No.163397
and the federal district court opinion on the writ of habeas corpus as
Dasseyv.Dittmann.
No.163397 21
thatDasseyhasnotshowncoercion.Aslongas
investigators statements merely encourage
honestyanddonotpromiseleniency,tellinga
defendant that cooperating would be to his or
her benefit is not coercive conduct. State v.
Berggren,2009WIApp82,31,320Wis.2d209,
769 N.W.2d 110. Nor is professing to know
facts they actually did not have. See State v.
Triggs, 2003 WI App 91, 15,17, 264 Wis.2d
861,663N.W.2d396(theuseofadeceptivetac
tic like exaggerating strength of evidence
againstsuspectdoesnotnecessarilymakecon
fession involuntary but instead is a factor to
considerintotalityofcircumstances).Thetruth
of the confession remained for the jury to de
termine.
Statev.Dassey,2013WL335923at*2.Althoughthestateap
pellate court listed Dasseys characteristics and some of the
circumstancesofhisinterrogation,aswewilldescribeinde
tail below, it did not do the one thing that the Supreme
Court requires which is to use special caution when as
sessing the voluntariness of juvenile confessions. J.D.B. v.
NorthCarolina,564U.S.261,269(2011);In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1,
45 (1967);Gallegosv.Colorado,370U.S.49,5354,(1962);Ha
ley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 599601 (1948). Paragraph 6 of the
appellate court decision lists Dasseys age and intellectual
limitations,butthen,inparagraph7,theonlyparagraphthat
analyzes whether Dasseys confession was voluntary or co
erced,itmerelyappliesthesameanalysisthatwouldapply
toanadultwithfullintellectualcapabilities.Specifically,the
stateappellatecourtconcludedthattacticssuchasencourag
ing honesty and the use of deceptive practices that are not
22 No.163397
decisionastotheadmissibilityoftheMay13telephonecall
betweenDasseyandhismotherwasnotcontrary to clearly
established federal law or based on an unreasonable deter
mination of the facts. Id. at 992. However, the district court
concludedthattheconfessionDasseygavetothepoliceon
March1,2006wassoclearlyinvoluntaryinaconstitutional
sensethatthecourtofappealsdecisiontothecontrarywas
an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
law, and that the admission of the confession was not
harmlesserror.Id.at100506.Thedistrictcourtorderedthe
StatetoreleaseDasseyfromcustodyunless,within90days,
the State initiated proceedings to retry him. Id. at 1006. On
November17,2016,this courtstayedthedistrict courtsor
der releasing Dassey pending resolution of this appeal.
CourtofAppealsRecord,R.22.
II.
A. TheAEDPAandhabeasrelief.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of
1996governsourreviewofastatecourtconvictionandlim
its it considerably. It erects a formidable barrier to federal
habeas relief for prisoners whose claims have been adjudi
cated in state court, requiring them to show that the state
courtsruling...wassolackinginjustificationthattherewas
anerror...beyondanypossibilityforfairmindeddisagree
ment.Burtv.Titlow,134S.Ct.10,12(2013).[W]emaynot
grant relief where reasonable minds could differ over the
correctapplicationoflegalprinciples,andwemustevaluate
thatapplicationonthebasisofthelawthatwasclearlyes
tablished at the time of the state court adjudication.
Elmorev. Holbrook, 137 S. Ct. 3, 7 (2016). A federal court re
viewing ahabeas petitionmustexaminethe decisionofthe
No.163397 25
butunreasonable.Id.Secondly,thecourtconcludedthatthe
state court had unreasonably applied clearly established
federal law by ignoring the totality of the circumstances in
assessing the voluntariness of Dasseys confession. Id. at
1004.Thedistrictcourtnotedthatalthough the state appel
latecourtarticulatedthecorrectstandard(butonlyasitap
pliedtoadults),itignoredseveraldeterminativefactorsout
right and, most importantly, focused on the statements of
the investigators in isolation rather than assessing them in
viewofDasseyspersonalcharacteristicsortheircumulative
effectonthevoluntarinessofDasseysconfession.Id.at1004.
We,likethedistrictcourt,havekeptthestrictconstraints
of the AEDPA forefront in our minds as we proceed with
ourdenovoreviewofthedistrictcourtsdecisiontograntthe
habeas petition. Rodriguez v. Gossett, 842 F.3d 531, 537 (7th
Cir.2016).
Yet even given the constraints of the AEDPA, we must
concludethatthe statecourtsdeterminationwas anunrea
sonable application of Supreme Court precedent. Although
it identified the general rule that a court must consider the
totality of the circumstances, it failed to apply the special
cautionrequiredinjuvenileconfessionsandfailedtoeval
uate the totality factors for juveniles as required. Further
more,thestateappellatecourtappliedthegenerictotalityof
the circumstances test to the facts in a way that was objec
tively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). The trial
courtsdeterminationofthefactswasalsounreasonableasit
ignoredtheclearandconvincingweightoftheevidence.See
28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(2); MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. at 340.
Althoughthestateappellatecourtnotedthatitwasobligat
edtoconsiderthetotalityofthecircumstances,itdidnotdo
28 No.163397
so.Aswenoted,injuveniles,theevaluationofthetotalityof
thecircumstancesincludesevaluationofthejuvenilesage,
experience,education,background,andintelligence,andin
to whether he has the capacity to understand the warnings
given him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and
the consequences of waiving those rights. Fare, 442 U.S. at
725; see also Murdock,846 F.3d at 209; Hardaway, 302 F.3d at
762. The state appellate court listed Dasseys age, education
andIQ,butitnever,atanypoint,evaluatedthosefactorsto
determine whether they affected the voluntariness of Das
seysconfession.Likewisetheappellatecourtanalyzedsome
of the investigators interrogation techniques, but it never
evaluated or assessed how those techniques affected the
voluntariness of an intellectually challenged juveniles con
fession.Instead,thestateappellatecourtmerelystatedthat,
incasesinvolvingadultsofordinaryintelligence,encourag
ing honesty and using deceptive practices does not make a
confessioninvoluntary.
Moreover, the state appellate court ignored the many
signsthatDasseywastryingtopleasetheinterrogatorsand
avoidconflictandaclearcutpatternoffactfeedinglinked
topromisesthat,together,resultedinasituationwhereDas
seys will clearly was overborne. That pattern was as fol
lows:theinvestigatorsemphasized,adnauseum,thatinor
der to be okay to get things over with to be set free
Dasseyhadtobehonest.Yetthroughouttheinterrogation
it became clear that honesty meant those things that the
investigators wanted Dassey to say. Whenever Dassey re
ported a fact that did not fit with the investigators theory,
hewaschastisedandtoldthathewouldnotbeokayun
lesshetoldthetruth.AndthispatterncontinueduntilDas
seyfinallyvoicedwhattheinvestigatorswantedhimtosay,
No.163397 29
falseevidence,buttopreventfundamentalunfairnessinthe
useofevidence,whethertrueorfalse.Coloradov.Connelly,
479 U.S. 157,167(1986)(citing Lisenba v.California, 314 U.S.
219,236(1941)).TheSupremeCourthaslongheldthatcer
taininterrogationtechniques,eitherinisolationorasapplied
to the unique characteristics of a particular suspect, are so
offensive to a civilized system of justice that they must be
condemnedundertheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth
Amendment. Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 109 (1985) (cit
ingBrownv.Mississippi,297U.S.278(1936)).Coercedconfes
sions also violate the Fifth Amendments right against self
incrimination. Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680, 688 (1993).
As the Supreme Court noted, [A] criminal law system
which comes to depend on the confession will, in the long
run, be less reliable and more subject to abuses than a sys
tem relying on independent investigation. Berghuis v.
Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, 40304 (2010) (internal citations
omitted).
[T]heultimateissueofvoluntarinessisalegalquestion
requiring independent federal determination. Arizona v.
Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279, 287 (1991);Millerv.Fenton,474U.S.
at110.AndundertheAEDPA,thiscourtmustaskwhether
the Wisconsin appellate courts decision concluding that
Dasseys confession was not involuntary was contrary to,
or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly estab
lished Federallaw, asdeterminedby the SupremeCourtof
the United States, (28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1); Bobby v. Dixon,
565U.S.23,27,(2011)),orwhetheritwasbasedonanunrea
sonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence
presented in the state court proceeding. 28 U.S.C.
2254(d)(2).
No.163397 31
2. Therisksofcoerciononvoluntariness.
Historically, courts have looked at traditional modes of
coercion in evaluating whether the defendant voluntarily
confessedthatis,whetherthesuspectwastortured,beaten,
ordeprivedofsleep,foodorwater.TheSupremeCourtand
the community of experts on confessions have long recog
nized, however, that psychological coercion can be as pow
erfulatoolasphysicalcoercion.Fulminante,499U.S.at287.
Theprimarycauseofpoliceinducedfalsecon
fessions is the use of psychologically coercive
police interrogation methods. These include
methodsthatwereonceidentifiedwiththeold
third degree, such as deprivation (of food,
sleep, water, or access to bathroom facilities,
for example), incommunicado interrogation,
and extreme induced exhaustion and fatigue.
Since the 1940s, however, these techniques
havebecomerareindomesticpoliceinterroga
tions. Instead, when todays police interroga
tors employ psychologically coercive tech
niques, they usually consist of implicit or ex
plicit promises of leniency and implicit or ex
plicit threats of harsher treatment in combina
tion with other interrogation techniques such
as accusation, repetition, attacks on denials,
andfalseevidenceploys.
Jon B. Gould & Richard A. Leo, One Hundred Years Later:
WrongfulConvictionsAfterACenturyofResearch,100J.Crim.
L.&Criminology825,846(2010).
32 No.163397
Inclosingargumentsattrial,thestatearguedthatpeo
ple who are innocent dont confess. R. 1923 at 144. We
know,however,thatinnocentpeopledoinfactconfessand
dosowithshockingregularity.TheNationalRegistryofEx
onerations has collected data on 1,994 exonerations in the
United States since 1989 (as of February 26, 2017), and that
dataincludes227casesofinnocentpeoplewhofalselycon
fessed.5 This research indicates that false confessions (de
fined as cases in which indisputably innocent individuals
confessedtocrimestheydidnotcommit)occurinanywhere
from1524%ofwrongfulconvictionscases.SamuelGross&
Michael Shaffer, Exoneration in the United States, 19892012:
ReportbytheNationalRegistryofExonerations,60.6
3. The heightened risks of coercion for youth and
theintellectuallydisabled.
Nowhereistheriskofinvoluntaryandfalseconfessions
higher than with youth and the mentally or intellectually
disabled. It is for this reason that the Supreme Court has
cautioned courts to exercise special caution when as
7 https://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Documents/ exonera
tions_us_1989_2012_full_report.pdf.
34 No.163397
8http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol95/iss2/5.
No.163397 35
maybeundulycoercivebecauseoftheinherentnatureofthe
conductitselforbecauseintheparticularcircumstancesof
thecase,theconfessionisunlikelytohavebeentheproduct
ofafreeandrationalwill.Millerv.Fenton,474U.S.at110.
Theadmissibilityofaconfessionturnsasmuchonwhether
the techniques for extracting the statements, as applied to
thissuspect,arecompatiblewithasystemthatpresumesin
nocenceandassuresthataconvictionwillnotbesecuredby
inquisitorial means as on whether the defendants will was
infactoverborne.Id.at116(emphasisinoriginal).Inshort,
acourtmustlookattheinterplaybetweenthecharacteristics
ofthedefendantandthenatureoftheinterrogation.Asim
plerecitationofeach,asthestateappellatecourtdidhere,is
notsufficient.
Factors that courts consider as part of the totality of the
circumstancesincludethelengthoftheinterrogation,itslo
cation, its continuity, the defendants maturity, education,
physical condition, mental health, and whether the police
advisedthedefendantofhisrighttoremainsilentandhave
counselpresent.Withrow,507U.S.at69394.Injuveniles,as
we have noted, the evaluation of the totality of the circum
stances includes evaluation of the juveniles age, experi
ence, education, background, and intelligence, and into
whetherhehasthecapacitytounderstandthewarningsgiv
en him, the nature of his Fifth Amendment rights, and the
consequencesofwaivingthoserights.Fare,442U.S.at725);
seealsoMurdock,846F.3dat209;Hardaway,302F.3dat762.
ThestateappellatecourtdidnotgiveDasseysconfession
the consideration required when evaluating the voluntari
nessofaconfessionofanintellectuallydisabledjuvenile.
36 No.163397
havehadnowaytoknowwhattheconsequencesofhiscon
fessionwerewithoutadviceastohisrights.Id.at54.
In contrast, in Fare, asixteenyearold with rather exten
sive prior experience in the criminal system confessed to
murderafterbeinginformedofhisMirandarights.Fare,442
U.S. at 70911. The Supreme Court found that there is no
indication that he was of insufficient intelligence to under
stand the rights he was waiving, or what the consequences
ofthatwaiverwouldbe.Hewasnotworndownbyimprop
erinterrogationtacticsorlengthyquestioningorbytrickery
ordeceit.Id.at72627.Andtherefore,basedonthetotality
of the circumstances, the confession was not coerced and
thusadmissible.Id.at727.
Thecasesfromthiscircuitalsodemonstratehowwehave
appliedSupremeCourtprecedenttodeterminethereasona
bleness of a state courts determination of voluntariness.
DerrickHardawaywasonlyfourteenyearsoldwhenthepo
licerousedhimfromhissleepat8:00a.m.,andtookhimto
thepolicestationwithouthisparents.Hardaway,302F.3dat
760. He was not handcuffed and remained in an unlocked
interrogationroomuntilhewasinterviewedat10:30amand
then interrogated for six hours, given a break for a few
hours,andtheninterrogatedagainforanotherfourhours.A
youth advocate joined the interrogation but never once
spokeuptoaidHardaway.Aclearlytornpanelofthiscourt
could not find that the state appellate court erred when it
held that the confession was voluntary, even if we might
have come to a different conclusion had we been deciding
thematterourselvesinthefirstinstance.
There is no doubt that Hardaways youth, the
lackofafriendlyadult,andthedurationofhis
38 No.163397
9Asdescribedinthefacts,Jandaclaimedshewascajoledoutofsittingin
theinterview.R.1930at155.Sheremainedinstead,inthewaitingroom
ofthepolicestation.
No.163397 41
tonosolitarystatement,factor,orinterrogationquestionthat
rendered Dasseys confession involuntary (although there
werecertainlysomeindividualleadingquestionsthatcame
close),butratheritwasdeathbyathousandcuts.Becauseof
thecumulativeeffectofthesecoercivetechniquesthelead
ing,thefactfeeding,thefalsepromises,themanipulationof
Dasseysdesiretoplease,thephysical,fatherlyassurancesas
Wiegert touched Dasseys knee etc.no reasonable court
couldhaveanyconfidencethatthiswasavoluntaryconfes
sion.
6. Nosinglefactorisdeterminative.
a. Courts must pay close attention to voluntariness
whenthedefendanthasnoadultallypresent.
Aswehavenowconcluded,thetotalitytestprohibitsany
one factor from being determinative of voluntariness. Mur
dock,846F.3dat209.Somecourts,includingthisone,never
theless have found particularly distressing the idea of mi
nors waiving rights and confessing without an adult ally
present.Thosecourtsthereforehavetoyedwiththeideaofa
per se rule that children under a certain age cannot waive
rights or make a voluntary confession without a parent,
guardian,orlegalrepresentativepresent.Seee.g.,Hardaway,
302 F.3d at 764. Our conclusion in Hardaway, however, was
thatthereisnosupportinclearlyestablishedfederallawfor
suchaperserulewhereSupremeCourtprecedenthasbeen
clear that courts instead must base their assessment on the
totality of the circumstances. Id. (citing Fare, 422 U.S. at
726). Youth, we concluded, remains a critical factor for
ourconsideration,andtheyoungerthechildthemorecare
fully we will scrutinize police questioning tactics to deter
mineifexcessivecoercionorintimidationorsimpleimmatu
No.163397 43
ritythatwouldnotaffectanadulthastaintedthejuveniles
confession. Hardaway, 302 F.3d at 765. See also, J.D.B. v.
NorthCarolina,564U.S.261, 269, 280 (2011);InreGault,387
U.S. at 45.
The state appellate court applied no extra care to Das
seys confession based on his lack of an adult advocate.
Youthwasnotacriticalfactorinitsanalysis;indeeditwas
notafactoratall.Itdidnotconsidertheinterrogationtech
niques in light of Dasseys lack of an adult advocate nor
acknowledge how Dasseys clear confusion during parts of
the interview could have been aided by an adult ally who
might have noticed Dasseys confusion and the manipula
tion. It did not mention how, immediately after Dasseys
mothercametohisside,hesuddenlyrealizedthattheinves
tigatorsgottomyhead,andheworriedthathewouldbe
caught in a liehaving confessed to a crime he did not
commit. He asks his mother, Whatd happen if he says
somethinghisstorysdifferent.Whhesayshe,headmitsto
doing it? Like if his storys different, like I never did
nothinorsomethin.R.1925at148.
b. Courts must pay close attention to voluntariness
when manipulative interrogation techniques are
used, particularly on the young and intellectually
challenged.
Psychologically manipulative interrogation techniques,
likewise,arenotpersecoercive,butamongthecircumstanc
esthatacourtmustevaluateintotaltodeterminewhethera
particular defendants free will has been overcome. To be
clear,manymanipulativeinterrogationtechniques,inandof
themselves,arenotunconstitutional.Trickery,deceit,even
impersonation do not render a confession inadmissible.
44 No.163397
UnitedStatesv.Villalpando,588F.3d1124,1128(7thCir.2009)
(citingU.S.v.Kontny,238F.3d815,817(7thCir.2001)).The
lawpermitsthepolicetopressureandcajole,concealmate
rial facts, and actively misleadall up to limits. United
States v. Rutledge, 900 F.2d 1127, 1131 (7th Cir. 1990). That
limitisexceeded,however,whenthegovernmentgivesthe
suspect information that destroys his ability to make a ra
tionalchoiceforexamplebypromisinghimthatifhecon
fesseshewillbesetfree.Alemanv.Vill.ofHanoverPark,662
F.3d897,906(7thCir.2011).And,aswedescribefurtherbe
low, those limits depend on the characteristics of the de
fendant.Falsepromisesthatasuspectwillbetreatedlenient
lybythecourts,wehavenoted,havetheuniquepotential
tomakeadecisiontospeakirrationalandtheresultingcon
fession unreliable because of the way it realigns a sus
pectsincentivesduringinterrogation.Villalpando,588F.3d
at 1128; United States v. Montgomery, 555 F.3d 623, 629 (7th
Cir. 2009)(afalsepromiseofleniency maybesufficientto
overcome a persons ability to make a rational decision
about the courses open to him.). See also United States v.
Nichols, 847 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2017) (a government
agentsfalsepromiseofleniencymayrenderastatementin
voluntary.);Montgomery,555F.3dat629([g]iventheright
circumstances,afalsepromiseofleniencymaybesufficient
to overcome a persons ability to make a rational decision
aboutthecoursesopentohim.);Hadleyv.Williams,368F.3d
747, 749(7thCir. 2004)(policemaynot extractaconfession
inexchangeforafalsepromisetosetthedefendantfree).
No.163397 45
Weattachnonefariouspurposestotheinvestigatorswho
were using established interrogation techniques.10 And, in
any event, the investigators purpose or subjective view of
the coercive nature of the interrogation is not relevant. It is
how those interrogation techniques interact with the de
fendantscharacteristicsthatdeterminesthevoluntarinessof
aconfession.Aseasonedcriminalwhohasvolleyedwithin
terrogators many times beforemay not be swayed at all by
an explicit but false claim of leniency, but a young, unso
phisticatedjuvenilemightbelieve,withjusttheslightesthint
of an offer of leniency, that if he confesses to murderGod
andthepolicewouldforgivehimandhecouldgohomein
timeforhisbrothersbirthdayparty.A.M.,360F.3dat794.
TheConstitutionrequiresthataconfessionbevoluntarily
given.Thedissentcriticizesthepanelopinionforrelyingon
the subjective perception of a defendant in determining the
voluntariness ofhis confession,butthisis,infact,what the
totality of the circumstances test requires. A thirtyyearold
withalawdegreewouldnotbelieveapoliceofficersassur
ance that if he confesses to murder he will go punishment
free, but yet the tenyearold, A.M. did just that. Id. A con
sideration of the totality of the circumstances requires the
10Apparentlythesetechniquesarenotstillderigueur,asDasseysinter
rogationisnowusedasawhatnottodoinatleastonecertifiedinter
rogation course. See Brief of Amici Curiae, Juvenile Law Center, Wick
landerZulawski & Associates, Inc. and Professor Brandon Garrett, In
Support of Appellee and Affirmance, at p. 56 (citing https://www.w
z.com/2016/08/19/netflixsmakingamurdererinvoluntaryconfession
aninterrogatorsperspective/#comment1266). Of course our considera
tion of the constitutionality of the interrogation does not hinge on
whether companies teaching these courses believe the technique to be
effectiveorproper.
46 No.163397
courttoconsiderwhetherthetechniquesforextractingthe
statements,asappliedtothissuspect,arecompatiblewitha
system that presumes innocence and assures that a convic
tionwillnotbesecuredbyinquisitorialmeansasonwhether
thedefendantswillwasinfactoverborne.Millerv.Fenton,
474U.S.at116(emphasisadded).Weneednotacceptade
fendants afterthefact proclamation of a lack of voluntari
ness,butthetotalityofthecircumstancesframeworkallows
acourttoconsidertheevidenceaboutthedefendantsability
to comprehend and contemporaneous evidence of what he
actually did or did not understand. If the Constitution re
quiresthataconfessionbevoluntary,thenitcanonlybesoif
theparticulardefendantsittingintheinterrogationwasnot,
infact,coerced.
Inotherwords,thetotalityofthecircumstancestestdic
tates that coercive interrogation on the one hand, and sus
pect suggestibility, on the other, are on inverse sliding
scalesthemorevulnerableorsuggestibleasuspect,theless
coercionit willtake toovercomeher freewill.Thisisnota
statementofanewtest, butratherthelogical conclusionof
the totality of the circumstances review itself. Therefore, to
determinewhetherapromiseiscoerciveasalegalmatter,a
court cannot consider the promise alone, but rather the
promise in conjunction with the characteristics of the sus
pect. Again, the Supreme Courts seminal case advises,
[t]hatwhichwouldleaveamancoldandunimpressedcan
overaweandoverwhelmaladinhisearlyteens.Haley,332
U.S.at599.AndtheSupremeCourtprecedentrequireslow
er courts to consider interrogation techniques as applied to
theparticulardefendantathand.Millerv.Fenton,474U.S.at
116.
No.163397 47
brutalkillerremainsatlarge.Theanswertothedissentsin
quiryaboutwhatpoliceofficersaretodoinsuchasituation
as Dasseys, therefore, comes from a long line of require
ments that courts have established for protecting the rights
of defendants during police interrogations. Specifically, in
such a case, the police should, as the Supreme Court re
quires, ensure that such a suspect has the capacity to un
derstand the warnings given him, the nature of his Fifth
Amendment rights, and the consequences of waiving those
rights.Fare,442U.S.at725;seealsoMurdock,846F.3dat209;
Hardaway,302F.3dat762.Andacourtreviewingachallenge
toaconfessionmustassessthetotalityofthecircumstances
toassureitselfthatthedefendantvoluntarilyconfessed.This
theappellatecourtdidnotdo.
7. Thestatecourtinthiscasedidnotapplyatotali
tyofthecircumstancestest.
The state court of appeals in this case affirmed the trial
courts determination that Dasseys confession was not in
voluntary.Dasseyv.Dittmann,2013WL335923at*2.Asthe
laststatecourttospeaktotheissue,itisthatcourtsdecision
that we review. Makiel, 782 F.3d at 896. As set forth in the
fact section above, after noting the requirement to consider
the voluntariness of the confession using the totality of the
circumstances test, the state appellate court addressed the
voluntarinessoftheconfessionintwoshortparagraphs.The
firstparagraph(6)consistedofalistofDasseyscharacter
istics and some general characteristics of the interrogation
including: Dasseys limited intelligence, the comfortable in
terrogation room, the Miranda warnings, his affect during
the interview, the investigators normal speaking tones, the
lackofhectoring,threatsorpromisesofleniency,thepleas
No.163397 49
forhonesty,andtheinvestigatorsattemptstobuildrapport.
State v. Dassey, 2013 WL 335923 at *2. In the second para
graph ( 7), the court of appeals concluded that the trial
courtsfindingofnocoercionwasnotclearlyerroneous.As
long as investigators statements merely encourage honesty
anddonotpromiseleniency,thecourtreasoned,tellinga
defendantthatcooperatingwouldbetohisorherbenefitis
not coercive conduct. Nor is professing to know facts they
actuallydidnothave.Id.
Althoughthestatementsinthissecondparagraphareac
curate as applied to an adult of ordinary intelligence, they
donotacknowledgethecourtsobligation toconsiderjuve
nileconfessionswithcautionandtheydonothingtoevalu
atethetotalityofthecircumstances.Anevaluationrequires
thatthecourtviewtheinterrogationtacticsinlightofthede
fendants situation and characteristics. A court has not ap
pliedthetotalityofthecircumstancestestsimplybystating
itsnameandbynotingthat,intheordinarycourseofdeal
ings, a police officer may use deceptive techniques. Apply
ingaruleoflawdoesnotrequiremuch,butitrequiresmore
thanjustparrotingthewordsoftherule.
Inadditiontofailingtoconsiderthefactorsinlightofthe
totality ofthecircumstances,thestateappellatecourtfailed
to consider some key factors at all, even individually. The
dissentcorrectlynotesthatastatecourtneednotgiveallof
itsreasoningforitsoutcome.Andthetotalityofthecircum
stancesdoesindeedgivestatecourtsasomewhatwideberth
fortheirconsiderations.Itistruethat[t]hemoregeneralthe
rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in
casebycase determinations. Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541
U.S. 652, 664 (2004). But the generality of the rule does not
50 No.163397
erationbythestatecourtanditwasnotevenmentionedin
the state courts analysis of the voluntariness of Dasseys
confession.
Finally, the state appellate court did not consider Das
seyssuggestibilitywhileassessingthecoercivenatureofthe
claim, despitethefactthatone entiredayoftrialtestimony
consistedofexpertsassessingDasseysmentalcapacityand,
in particular, his suggestibility. Given the instances we dis
cuss below of investigators steering him to particular an
swers,thiswasacriticaloversight.
ThedirectivefromtheSupremeCourttoconsidertheto
tality of the circumstances ensures that this particular de
fendantvoluntarilyconfessed.Itisnousetonotethattelling
a defendant that cooperating would be to his benefit is not
per se coercive, if the words used to convey that notion
soundlikeapromiseofleniencytothisparticulardefendant.
Likewise, falsely claiming to have knowledge is not per se
coercive, unless it is used in a manner that overcomes the
freewillofthisparticulardefendant.Thestatecourtdidnot,
inanyrespectormanner,considertheinteractionofthein
terrogationtechniqueswithDasseysyouth,intellectuallimi
tations,suggestibility,lackofexperiencewiththepolice,lack
ofafriendlyadult,andnaivet.
Insum,therewasnototalityinthistotalityofthecir
cumstances test at all. There was no assessment of the cu
mulative nature of the interrogators promises, no assess
mentofthefactfeedinginlightofDasseyslimitedintellec
tualabilities,noassessmentoftheabsenceofafriendlyadult
whocouldprotectDasseyandadvocateforhisinterests,no
assessmentofDasseysconfusioninresponsetomanyques
tions,orhisapparentdesiretopleasetheinterrogatorswith
No.163397 53
hisanswers,noassessmentofhowhisanswerschangedand
why, and no assessment of his repeated statements that he
expectedthat,inreturnforhisstatements,hewouldbeset
free to return to school at the conclusion of the interroga
tion.Itisnotthatthestatecourtdidnotdoenough;wecan
havenoconfidencethatitconsideredthetotality ofthecir
cumstancesatall.
Although different courts and judges might disagree as
tohowmuchweighttoassigneachfactoronfactssimilarto
those in [any Petitioners] case (Etherly, 619 F.3d at 662), a
reasonable jurist must, in fact, consider the relevant facts
surroundingaconfession,andconsidertheircombinedand
cumulative effect. Id. A consideration of the totality of the
circumstances requires the court to consider whether the
techniques for extracting the statements, as applied to this
suspect, are compatible with a system that presumes inno
cence and assures that a conviction will not be secured by
inquisitorial means as on whether the defendants will was
infactoverborne.Millerv.Fenton,474U.S.at116(emphasis
added).
C. The voluntariness of Dasseys confession analyzed
inlightofthetotalityofthecircumstances.
In addition to failing to apply a totality of the circum
stances analysis to the facts of this case, as required by the
Supreme Court, the state court acted unreasonably when it
determined thatgiven the totality of the circumstances
Dasseys confession was voluntary. The state appellate
courts finding that there were no promises of leniency or
other factors that overcame Dasseys free will was against
theclearweightoftheevidence.28U.S.C.2254(d)(2);Ward
v.Sternes,334F.3d696,704(7thCir.2003).
54 No.163397
Thus2254(d)(2)requiresafederalcourtonhabeasre
view to look at those facts to determine whether the state
courtproceedingsresultedinadecisionthatwasbasedon
anunreasonabledeterminationofthefactsinlightoftheev
idence presented in the State court proceeding. Id. Moreo
ver, [w]here a state courts decision is unaccompanied by
an explanation, the habeas petitioners burden still must be
met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state
court to deny relief. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 98
(2011). And a federal court reviewing a habeas petition un
der2254(d),mustdeterminewhatargumentsortheories
supported or, as here, could have supported, the state
courtsdecision;and thenitmustaskwhetheritispossible
fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or
theoriesareinconsistentwiththeholdinginapriordecision
ofthisCourt.Id.at102.Suchadeterminationdoesnotturn
habeasreviewtodenovoreview,asthedissentsuggests.Itis,
tothecontrary,preciselywhattheSupremeCourtrequires.
Id. Because the stateappellatecourts opinionfailed to give
anyexplanationotherthanalistingofDasseyscharacteris
ticsandthecircumstancesoftheinterrogation,inreviewing
the reasonableness of the determination of the facts in light
of the evidence presented, we look to see what theories
couldhavesupportedthestatecourtsconclusion.
1. ThemessagesenttoDassey:Thetruthiswhat
wewantyoutosay,andthatiswhatwillsetyou
free.
Dasseysinterviewcouldbeviewedinapsychologyclass
as a perfect example of operant conditioning. As we will
demonstratethroughmyriadexamplesbelow,thethemeset
forthforDasseywastwofold,thathonestyistheonlything
No.163397 55
thatwillsetyoufree,R.1925at17,andthathonestywould
appeasetheinvestigators,avoidconflict,andallowthemto
be Dasseys friend, to go to bat for [him] to be in his
corner.Id.at16,25.Inotherwords,thekeytowalkingouta
free person, avoiding the conflict that his socially avoidant
personalityfeared,andgettingbackintimeforschoollunch
was honesty. But Dassey quickly learned that honesty
meanttellingtheinvestigatorswhatitwasthattheywanted
to hear. When they did not like his answer, they told him
things like Come on Brendan. Be honest. I told you thats
the only thing thats gonna help ya here; and [w]e dont
get honesty here,Imyourfriendrightnow, butI gotta be
lieveinyouandifIdontbelieveinyou,Icantgotobatfor
you.Id.at23.Everytimetheinvestigatorssaidtellusthe
truth or we know what the truth is, Dassey altered his
story just a bit. As Dassey got closer and closer to the an
swerstheinvestigatorswerelookingfor,hisstatementswere
rewardedwithaffirmationslikethatmakessense.Nowwe
believeyou,andindoingso,theycementedthatversionof
thefacts.See,e.g.,Id.at73.ButwhenDasseydeviatedfrom
the expected narrative, the investigators either offered no
reward,ignoredthecomments,steeredhimaway,orlethim
knowthattheythoughthewasnottellingthetruth.Inshort,
as the examples clearly demonstrate, be honest, tell the
truth,andsimilarpleasbecamecodeforguessagain,that
isnotwhatwewantedyoutotellus.Andnowwebelieve
you and that makes sense became code for thats what
wewanttohear.Stoprightthere.Dasseysreactiontothese
cues is not unique. Experts on confessions have noted that
thoughcourtsarereluctanttofindthatpoliceofficershave
overwhelmed a childs will by repeatedly admonishing the
child to tell the truth, many children will eventually hear
56 No.163397
schoolonOctober31,hesawHalbachandAverytalkingon
Averysporch.R.1925at1920,2728,90.Infact,theoffic
ersgrilledhimaskingAndyouresureyousawthat?Id.at
20;didyoureallyseethosetwotalkingontheporchId.at
27; Youre 100% on that? Id. at 28. And each time he an
swered affirmatively. Yet, once they repeatedly cued him
that they did not like hisanswerand that he musttellthe
truthin other words, tell them what they wanted to
hearhealteredhismessageexactlyashewasinstructed:
Fassbender: OK, and you said you walked
downth[sic]theroadtoyourhouse,(Brendan
nodsyes)andyousaidthatyousawSteven
ontheporch.
Brendan: (nodsyes)uhhuh
Fassbender: Mark and I are havin a problem
with that. Now if, Im not, Im not sayin that
Im gonna put words in your mouth so were
havinaproblemwiththat.thetimeperiods
arentaddingup.Theyrenotequalingout.We
know when Teresa got there. (Brendan nods
yes)Um,and,andIknowIguaranteeyaTe
resas not standing on that porch when you
come home from school. I ju [sic] I dont see
that. Somethin is not adding up here and
youneedtotellusthetruth.Didthisallstart
right when you came home from school? You
need to tell me, you need to be honest with
me.Icanttellya,IIcanttellyathesethings.I
can tell ya we dont believe you because
theressomethingsthatarewrongbutyouve
gotta tell me the truth. This is you know get
58 No.163397
truckisagoodplacetostart.Tellusthetruthaboutthe
truck.
Brendan: Itwasbackedintothegarage.
R.1934at2122.
60 No.163397
Forexample,intheMarch1interrogation,onseveraloc
casions the investigators tried to pin down the constantly
changingorderofevents.Theeventsaregruesome,serious,
anddistinct,andtheorderiscriticaltohowtheywereper
formed. For example, it is far different to choke a victim
whosethroathasbeencutthantocutthethroatofavictim
who has been choked. Nevertheless, Dassey cannot keep
thesedetailsstraight.InitiallyDasseysaidthatHalbachwas
stabbed, tied up, and then choked R. 1925 at 5455. Mo
mentslaterhestatedthatshewastiedup,thenstabbed,then
chokedId.at56,andafewtranscriptpageslaterheassures
the investigators that he is sure that she was stabbed,
choked,andthentiedupId.at59;butafewpagesafterthat
he stated that she was stabbed, tied up and her throat was
cut Id. at 64. Finally, he circles back to a retelling in which
hesaysthatHalbachwastiedup,stabbedandthencutId.at
101. At one point the investigators are desperate to get the
orderright:
Fassbender: Brendan, were in the bedroom
yet, OK? (Brendan nods yes) Shes hand
cuffed yet right? (Brendan nods yes) And
youretellinmeif,obviouslycorrectmeifIm
wrong, what we heard. (Brendan nods yes).
Whilesheshandcuffedandalive,hestabsher.
Brendan: (nodsyes)mmhuh.
Fassbender: Chokes her? Right? (Brendan
nodsyes)Isthatright?
Brendan: (nodsYes)mmhuh.
Fassbender: And then he has you cut her
neck?
62 No.163397
Brendan: Yeah.
Id. at 66. But just when the investigators thought that they
hadtheorderdown,attheendoftheinterviewtheyasked
onemoretimetolockitinandtheorderfallsapartagain:
Wiegert: Welllets,letsjustgobackalittle
bit OK? Telluswhat exactlyhappenedto her,
whatorderithappenedin.Yousaidtherewere
basicallythreethingspriortoyouguysshoot
ing her. Explain those in, in the order that it
happened.
Brendan: Startingwithwhenwegotinthe
room?
Fassbender: OK.
Wiegert: Yeah,whatyouguysdidtoher.
Brendan: Wehadsexwithher
Wiegert: OK.
Brendan: Thenhestabbedher.
Wiegert: Thenwhostabbedher?
Brendan: Hedid.
Wiegert: Whoshe?
Brendan: Steven.
Wiegert: OK,andthenwhat?
Brendan: ThenIcutherthroat.
Wiegert: OK.
Brendan: AndthenhechokedherandIcut
offherhair.
No.163397 63
Id.at11617.
In short, a reasonable state court that had carefully re
viewed the confession would have quickly determined that
theinterrogatorspleasforhonestyirrespectiveofhowthey
intended themdid not have the effect of eliciting honesty
from Dassey, but rather had the effect of eliciting guesses
fromDasseyaboutwhattheinvestigatorswantedtohear.In
Dasseys mind,thewordsbehonest andthe likecameto
mean guess again until you say what we want to hear.
Consequently, the interrogation became not one of eliciting
honesty through a voluntary confession, but one of leading
Dassey into the story the interrogators wanted to hear. No
whereisthismoreclearthaninthefollowingtwoexamples
below.
Thefirstexamplecomesfromthekeypartoftheinterro
gation.Aswenotedearlier,bythetimeoftheMarch1inter
view,theinvestigatorsknewthatHalbachhadbeenshotin
thehead.Theyalsoknewthatthebatteryhadbeenremoved
from her Toyota RAV4. These two details had not yet been
releasedpubliclyandthusDasseysknowledgeofthesede
tails would be particularly inculpatory. It is a common in
vestigativetechniquetoholdbackdetailsofacrimefromthe
mediaandpublictotestthevalidityofaconfession.Thefol
lowing exchange demonstrates many of the totality factors
and interrogation techniques we will describe below
Dasseys naivet, false information (we already know),
minimizingDasseysroleinthecrime(hemadeyoudoit),
and admonitions to tell the truth. But in particular it
demonstrateshowtheinterrogatorsadmonitionstotellthe
truth cue Dassey to keep guessing, and most importantly,
howtheinterrogatorstaintedthevoluntarinessoftheinter
No.163397 65
12WenotethatDasseysintonationrisesattheendofthisstatement,as
thoughheisaskingaquestion.R.1944,Ex.43,Disc1at11:57:41.
66 No.163397
Thisexampledemonstrateshowcriticalthesteeringwas
to Dasseys confession. Recall that the gunshot wounds to
theheadwereunknowntoanyonebuttheinvestigatorsand
therealkillerandthuswerekeytodeterminingtheveracity
of the confession. Dassey couldnt think of it and instead
launched into a litany of other dubious guesses about ac
tionsthat mighthavebefallenTeresa. Shootingalivinghu
maninthehead(orseeingithappen)isnotsomethingthata
personislikelytoforget.Indeed,Dasseylaterdescribedhow
hecouldnolongershootagunorgohuntingbecausehehad
beentraumatizedbytheshootingof his pet cat:Icouldnt
shoot no more cuz we used to have a cat that was like
somethinwaswrongwithemandwehadtoshootembe
cause we didnt want to pay for the bills and my mom
told me not to watch when hers nows exboyfriend shot it,
shotemandIcouldntwatch.Id.at6566.Butyetdespite
theimpactofthecatincident,Dasseycouldnotthinkofit
when asked what was done to Halbachs head. Cleary his
inabilitytodescribetheshootingwasnotanefforttoprotect
himself,ashehadjustadmittedtoslittingHalbachsthroat.
Afterguessingmanyofthemostcommonthingsthataper
sonmightdotoavictimsheadcuttinghair,punching,cut
tingthethroathesimplycouldnotthinkofanythingelse
that was done to her head until Wiegert says, Im just
gonnacomeoutandaskyou.Whoshotherinthehead?Id.
at63.Suddenlyhecould[]thinkofit.Id.Andofcoursehe
hadtothinkofitbecauseFassbenderhadjusttoldDassey
thatitwasextremelyimportantforyoutotellusthis,forus
to believe you. In other words, finding the right answer
was the key to freedom and pleasing the interrogators be
cause the truthmeaning what the investigators wanted
Dasseytosaywouldavoidconflictandsethimfree.
68 No.163397
earlier,wasnotusedattrial.Itwasadmittedatthestatepostconviction
proceedingsandispartoftherecord.R.1934.Wehighlightitonlyasan
exampleofDasseysconfusedresponsestoleadingquestions.Asaside
note, this conversation also serves as a glimpse into the interrogators
clear efforts to have Dassey move all of the events of the crime to the
garage,asnoforensicevidencewasfoundinAverystrailer.
No.163397 69
Brendan: No.(shakesheadno)
Fassbender: Where did you get that from?
(pause) I mean it seems kind of strange that
youjustallofasuddentoldusyouhadcuther
hairoff.Wheredidyougetthatfrom,ifitsnot
true?
Brendan: Idontknow,Iwasjustguessing.
Fassbender: Why, Did you think that was
somethinwewantedtohear?
Fassbender: Brendan, didnt did someone
some one [sic] cut her hair off that night?
Truthfully,forTeresa?
Brendan: No.(shakesheadno)
R.1934at3637,6566,98(emphasisadded).Infactinves
tigators never found any evidence of Halbachs hair on
Averysbed,hiscarpet,anywhereinhistrailerorthegarage.
Investigators also hoped that Dassey would reveal an
otherdetailunknowntothepublicthefactthatthecarbat
teryhadbeendetached:
Wiegert: After he put the car there, what
doyoudonext?
Brendan: Wewalkout.
Wiegert: With, hows, the license plates
weretakenoffthecar,whodidthat?
Brendan: Idontknow.
Wiegert: Didyoudothat?
Brendan: (Shakesheadno)No.
No.163397 71
Wiegert: DidStevedothat?
Brendan: Yeah.
Wiegert: Well then whyd you say you
dontknow?
***
Fassbender: Ok, what else did he do, he did
somethinelse,youneedtotelluswhathedid,
after that car is parked there. Its extremely
important.(pause).Beforeyouguysleavethat
car.(pause)
Brendan: Thathelefttheguninthecar.
Fassbender: Thats not what Im thinkin
about. He did something to that car. He took
the plates and he, I believe he did something
elsetothatcar.(longpause)
Brendan: Idontknow.
Fassbender: OK.Didhe,didhegoandlookat
theengine,didheraisethehoodatallorany
thinglikethat?Todosomethingtothatcar?
Brendan: (longpause)Yeah.
Fassbender: Whatwasthat?(pause)
Wiegert: WhatdidhedoBrendan?(Pause)
Fassbender: What did he do under the hood,
ifthatswhathedid?(longpause)
Brendan: I dont know what he did, but I
knowhewentunder.
72 No.163397
thatburnbarrel?Itsahyoumightwannabea
littlemoretruthfulaboutnow.14
Brendan: Thatitwasfullofstuff.
Fassbender: Wasitburning?
Brendan: Yeah.
Fassbender: Did you put some things in that
burnbarrelthatnight?
Brendan: (shakesheadno)No.
Fassbender: WhathappenedtoTeresasother
personal effects? I mean ah a woman usually
hasapurseright?(Brendannodsyes)Tellus
whathappenedtathat?
Brendan: I dont know what happened to
it.
Fassbender: Whathappenedtaherah,hercell
phone? (short pause) Dont tryta ta think of
somethinjust.
Brendan: Idontknow.
Fassbender: Did Steven did you see whether
ahacellphoneofhers?
Brendan: (shakesheadno)No.
Brendan: Cuzitwasfull.
Wiegert: Whatelsewasinthere?
Brendan: Likegarbagebags,some
Wiegert: Did you put those things in the
burningbarrel?
Brendan: (shakesheadno)No.
Wiegert: Did you actually see those items
intheburningbarrel?(Wiegertemphasizesthe
wordsee.)
Brendan: (nodsyes)Yeah.
Wiegert: Tell me what you saw in there
exactly.
Brendan: Like they were buried under
neathah,garbage,agarbagebagthatwas
Wiegert: Howdoyouknow,orhowcould
you see them if they were underneath a gar
bagebag?
Brendan: Becausethegarbagebagwaslike
ontoplikethatfaroffthetop.
Wiegert: OK. So we have the barrel,
(Brendannodsyes)OK.Whydontyoulook
atmeforasecond,OK.Wevegotthebarrel:
Brendan: (nodsyes)mmhuh.
Wiegert: OK and heres is the top of the
barrel (Brendan nods yes) and the garbage
bagisontop?
Brendan: (nodsyes)Yeah.
76 No.163397
timewhentheinvestigatorsstillconsideredDasseytobeawitnessrather
than a suspect, but prior to this March 1 interview, the investigators
80 No.163397
thoughtitwaspossiblethatBrendanmighthavebeeninvolvedinthe
disposalofthecorpse.R.1930at38.And,aswesetforthlater,thein
vestigators continued their assurances that Dassey would be alright
throughouttheinterview,allofwhichhadbeenprefacedandcontextu
alizedbytheearlyassertions.
No.163397 81
wouldBrendanDassey,withhislimitedintelligenceandso
cialskills,thinkofthisadmonitionlinkedwithapromise?
b. Falsepromisesofleniency.
Afterpaintingthewereonyoursidebackdrop,thein
vestigators brought in the main scaffolding of their ap
proachthe false promises that Dassey would be better off
confessing than remaining silent. Some of these promises
were problematic in and of themselvesfor example, a
promise that if Dassey told the truth, he would be set free.
Theotherpromiseserodedvoluntarinessbecausetheywere
linkedtoarequirementtotellthetruth,which,aswehave
established meant the version of the storythat the investi
gators wanted to hear. By linking what the investigators
wanted to hear with assurances that those versions would
make Dassey alright and okay, the confession became
notone borneof Dasseysfreewillbutofthe investigators
wills.
The investigators began the interrogation with a mono
logue, the theme of which was that Dassey could improve
hislotbytellingthetruth,andculminatinginthestatement,
Honestyistheonlythingthatwillsetyoufree.R.1925at
17. As the district court noted, this a biblical idiom that
many adults would recognize as a figurative expression.
Dasseyv.Dittmann,201F.3d.at1002.Dassey,however,was
notsomeonewhounderstoodidiomsandsubtledistinctions
between literal and figurative language. His school special
education reports (prepared long before the crime or trial,
foruseatschool)notedinparticularthatidiomswereanas
pectoflanguagethatDasseyhadtroubleunderstanding.R.
1920 at 79. This is a juvenile who, after all, when told that
hispolygraphshoweda98%probabilityofdeceptionasked,
82 No.163397
knowingallofthat,everythingisgoingtobeokay.Thein
vestigatorspepperedtheentireinvestigationwithassuranc
es that Dassey was going to be alright, coupled with
acknowledgements that they were making these assurances
notwithstanding all of the horrible facts that they already
knew. Those pleas promised that the key to unlocking the
youregoingtobealrightresultwashonesty.
The assurances that Dassey would be alright came in
many forms: from what Im seeing ... Im thinking youre
allright.OK,youdonthavetoworryaboutthings.R.19
25 at 16; [N]o matter what you did, we can work through
that.Id.at17;ItsOK.Aslongasyoucan,aslongasyou
behonestwithus,itsOK.Ifyoulieaboutitthatsgonnabe
problems.OK.Id.;Wealreadyknow.Justtellus.ItsOK.
Id.at24;ItsOKbecausehewastellingyoutodoit.Id.at
28; We already know, its, OK?Were gonna help you
through this, alright? Id. at 37; Its OK Brendan. We al
readyknow.Id.at41;ItsOK,telluswhathappened.Id.
at46;Itsnotyourfault.Id.at47;Letsgetitallouttoday
andthiswillbealloverwith.Id.at48;ItsOK,whatdyou
dowithit?Id.at76;Brendan,itsOKtotellusOK.Id.at
96.
Again, the power came, not from the assurances alone,
but the assurances coupled with the false information that
theinvestigatorsalreadykneweverything.Theinvestiga
torswerenotmerelytellingDassey,Baseduponwhatyou
havetoldussofar,wedontthinkyouhaveanythingtowor
ryabout.Rather,whattheytoldDasseywas, Wealready
knowwhathappenedandyoudonthaveanythingtoworry
about.
No.163397 85
Dasseymadeofthemthatifhetoldthetale,astheinterro
gatorshadintroducedittohim,hewouldbereleased.After
confessing to the heinous crimes of raping Teresa Halbach,
slittingherthroat,andthenburningherbody,Dasseyasked
if he would make it to school by 1:29 p.m. so that he could
turninaprojecthehaddueinhissixthhourclass.R.1925
at 89. And later he asked Am I gonna be at school before
schoolends?Id.at143.WhenFassbenderaskedhimatthe
endoftheinterrogationifheknowswhatisgoingtohappen
next,DasseysaysIdontknow.Id.at144.Whentheytell
him he will be arrested, he responds, Is it only for one
day? Id. These lamentably nave questions suggest that
Dassey counted on these assurances that he would be
okay to mean that he had a free pass to say whatever he
wanted(or,moreaccurately,whateverhethoughttheinves
tigatorswantedtohear)andwouldnotgotojail.Certainly
noadulthadwarnedhimotherwise.
Once again we recognize that false promises, like other
interrogation techniques, do not, per se, make a confession
involuntary. Villalpando, 588 F.3d at 1128. Promises,howev
er, cannot be viewed in a vacuum, but rather assessed as
they interact with a defendants unique characteristics. A
matureadultofordinaryintelligencemightalwaysappreci
atethatregardlessofanyassuranceshehasbeengiventhat
his incriminating statements might put him in prison. But
thestateappellatecourtviewedthewordsoftheinterroga
torsalonewithoutreferencetoDasseyandwithoutlooking
attheircumulativeeffectandconcludedthatthosewordsby
themselves did not promise leniency, but rather merely en
couraged honesty. This is an unreasonable finding of fact
andanunreasonableapplicationofthefederallawstotali
tyofthecircumstancesrequirementtothosefacts.
88 No.163397
Brendan: HetoldmetadoherTascrew
her.
Wiegert: Ok.Didyoudothat?Honestly?
Brendan: Yeah.
Id.at50.
4. Examplesofresistance.
TheStatemakesmuchofthefactthatDasseyresistedthe
interrogators on many occasions. In fact, the State counts
eight occasions in which Dassey resists the interrogators
suggested response. These exchanges differ markedly from
the exchanges in which Dassey shifts or changes his an
swers. For example, in comparison to the example of the
garagefloorandseeingHalbachontheporch,theexchange
between Dassey andthe investigatorsregardingfalseinfor
mation about a tattoo differs significantly in form, length
andfollowup.Mostimportantly,itdoesnotcontainthepat
ternofcontinualpleasforhonestyuntiltheanswerchanges.
In the exchange below, the investigators inserted the false
notion that Halbach had a tattooa tactic interrogators are
trainedtodototestasuspectshonestyandsuggestibility.
Fassbender: Probablywhenshewasalive,did
she have any scars, marks, tattoos, stuff like
that,thatyoucanremember?
Brendan: Idontrememberanytattoos
But then just seconds later, the following exchange oc
curs:
Fassbender: Ok.(pause)WeknowthatTeresa
hada,atattooonherstomach,doyouremem
berthat?
No.163397 95
Brendan: (Shakesheadno)uhuh.
Fassbender: DoyoudisagreewithmewhenI
saythat?
Brendan: No but I dont know where it
was.
Fassbender: OK.
Id. at 13739. Rather than explore the subject further, ask
where the tattoo was and what it looked like, or admonish
Dassey to be honest to encourage him to guess again,
Fassbenderinsteadimmediatelymovedontoanewsubject.
From the investigators perspective, no good could have
comefromfurtherexplorationafterDasseyhaddemonstrat
edawillingnesstogoalongwiththeideathatHalbachhad
atattoo;hejustdoesntknowwhereitwas.Id.Moreover,
Dasseywasabletoaffirmthathedidnotdisagreewiththe
investigators so he was not forced to change his story to
agree.Basedonourpriorexamples,however,onecanimag
inethatifFassbenderhadcontinuedashedidinotherareas,
andthenextquestionheaskedwasBehonest,didshehave
a tattoo of a butterfly or a tiger? Dassey would have re
spondedwithoneortheotheruntilhefoundthecorrectan
swer.
Second,itistruethatatfirstDasseyisfirmaboutthelo
cationoftheknifethatAveryusedtostabHalbach,butonce
the investigators use the code tell us the truth (in other
words,changeyourstorytotelluswhatwewanttohear),
heimmediatelycavedtotheirsuggestion.TheStatecitesthe
initial response, but not the followup where Dassey suc
cumbs.Theinitialexchangewasasfollows:
96 No.163397
Wiegert: Wherewastheknifethatheused,
eryouused.Wheresthatknifego?
Brendan: HeleftitintheJeep.
Wiegert: Hewhat?
Brendan: HeleftitintheJeep.
Wiegert: ItsnotintheJeepnow,wheredo
youthinkitmightbe?
Brendan: Isure[sic]itwas.
Wiegert: DidyouseeitintheJeep?
Brendan: Yeah,cuzhesetitonthefloor.
Wiegert: Whereonthefloordidhesetit?
Brendan: Inthemiddleoftheseats.
Wiegert: Okay.
Id.at8081.
In that exchange, there was no admonition to tell the
truthorinquiriesaboutwhetherhewascertain,ashappened
in the following exchange where he did, indeed change his
answeraboutthelocationoftheknife:
Wiegert: WhWhat about the knife, where
is the knife, be honest with me, wheres the
knife?ItsOK,weneedtogetthatOK?Helpus
out,wherestheknife?
Brendan: Probablyinthedrawer.
Wiegert: Inwhichdrawer?
Brendan: Hisknifedrawer;
Wiegert: Andwheresthat?
No.163397 97
Brendan: Inthekitchen.
Wiegert: Isit probably inthere, ordo you
knowitsinthere.
Brendan: ThatswhereIthinkitis.
Wiegert: Whydoyouthinkitsinthere?
Brendan: Cuzhewouldntletthatknifego.
Wiegert: Cuzhewouldntlettheknifego.
Howdoyouknowthat?
Brendan: Cuzitwasaprettyniceknife.
Id.at121(emphasisadded).
Third,theStatearguesthatDasseyresistedchanginghis
answerregardingwhenAverystartedthefiredespitemany
questions by investigators. But the conversation about the
fire was the very exchange in which the investigators be
camesternwithDasseyandsetforththerulesforthein
terviewthat is, if Dassey failed to tell them what they
wantedtohear,theinvestigatorswouldreprimandhimuntil
heguessedthecorrectanswer.FassbendertellsDasseypre
ciselywhattheonlyacceptableanswerwillbe:
Fassbender: Whataboutthefire?
Dassey: Do you mean if it was started or
somethin?Noitwasnt(shakeshisheadno.)
Fassbender: Ok. Were not going to go any
furtherinthiscuzweneedtogetthetruthout
now. We know the fire was going. Lets
takeitthroughhonestlynow.
Id.at23(emphasisadded).TheStatearguesthatDasseycon
tinuedthroughouttheinterrogationtostatethatthefirewas
98 No.163397
HAMILTON,CircuitJudge,dissenting.BrendanDasseycon
fessedonvideotapethatherapedTeresaHalbach,helpedhis
unclemurderher,andthenburnedherbodyinafirepitathis
unclesjunkyard.AjuryconvictedDasseyofthosecrimes,and
the Wisconsin state courts have upheld the convictions. On
federal habeas corpus review, however, Dassey has per
suadedthedistrictcourtandnowmycolleaguesthathiscon
fessionwasinvoluntaryandhisconvictionsinvalid.Irespect
fullydissent.Weshouldreverse.
TodecidewhetherDasseysconfessionwasvoluntary,the
statecourtsappliedthecorrectbutgeneralandevenindeter
minatetotalityofthecircumstancestest.SeeWithrowv.Wil
liams,507U.S.680,69394(1993);Gallegosv.Colorado,370U.S.
49,55(1962).TheWisconsinCourtofAppealsupheldthetrial
courts finding that Dasseys confession was voluntary in a
succinctpercuriamopinionthatrejectedthatclaimintwopar
agraphs. That was permissible. While the majority would
havepreferredamorenuancedanddetaileddiscussionofthe
circumstancessurroundingDasseysconfession,theAntiter
rorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyAct(AEDPA)of1996does
notauthorizefederalcourtstositinjudgmentofthelengthof
statecourtopinions.Rather,asHarringtonv.Richterteaches,
evenunexplaineddecisionsbystatecourtsareentitledtodef
erence under AEDPA. See 562 U.S. 86, 98 (2011) (Where a
statecourtsdecisionisunaccompaniedbyanexplanation,the
habeaspetitionersburdenstillmustbemetbyshowingthere
wasnoreasonablebasisforthestatecourt todenyrelief.).
UnderAEDPAandRichter,reliefmustbedeniedifareasona
blecourtcouldhavereachedthestatecourtsconclusion.Id.
106 No.163397
Habeasrelieffromstatecourtconvictionsisrare,reserved
forthoseunusualcaseswherestatecourtsabandontheirob
ligationtoenforcefederalconstitutionallaw.Seeid.at10203
(If[theAEDPA]standardisdifficulttomeet,thatisbecause
itwasmeanttobe.Section2254(d)reflectstheviewthat
habeascorpusisaguardagainstextrememalfunctionsinthe
state criminal justice systems, not a substitute for ordinary
errorcorrectionthroughappeal.)(citationomitted).NoSu
premeCourtprecedentcompelsreliefforDassey.Hispetition
shouldbedenied.
RatherthanshowhowSupremeCourtprecedentrequires
habeas relief, the majority observes: By surveying the Su
preme Court cases on the voluntariness of juvenile confes
sionsonecanseehowmuchtheuniquecharacteristicsofboth
thedefendantandtheinterrogationplayintotheassessment
of voluntariness. Ante at 36. For this reason, the majority
writes,othercasescanonlyactasbroadguideposts.Id.
That is exactly right, but that is also why we should re
verse. Without a compelling showing based on Supreme
Court precedent, habeas relief must be denied. The more a
statecourtsdecisiondependsonweighingahostoffactors
aspartofthetotalityofthecircumstances,theharderitisto
showthatthedecisionwascontraryto,orinvolvedanun
reasonableapplicationof,clearlyestablishedFederallaw.28
U.S.C.2254(d)(1).Applyingsuchabroadstandardtoapar
ticularcaseleavessubstantialroomforjudgment.Themore
generaltherule,themoreleewaycourtshaveinreachingout
comes in casebycase determinations. Yarborough v. Al
varado,541U.S.652,664(2004)(reversinggrantofhabeaspe
titionwheresimilarfactsensitivestandardgovernedwhether
No.163397 107
seventeenyearoldpetitionerhadbeenincustodyduring
interrogationinwhichheconfessed).
Even if we were reviewing the admissibility of Dasseys
confession de novo, great caution would be warranted. The
majoritys decision breaks new ground and poses troubling
questions for police and prosecutors. It calls into question
standardinterrogationtechniquesthatcourtshaveroutinely
foundpermissible,evenincasesinvolvingjuveniles.
ThiswasarelativelybriefandlowkeyinterviewofaMi
randized subject who was not mistreated or threatened,
whose creature comforts were satisfied, and whose parent
consented.Ifsuchagentleinterrogationcanbetreatedasun
constitutionallycoercive,whatshouldpolicedothenexttime
an investigation leads to a teenager with some intellectual
challenges?Fewwrongdoersareeagertoownuptocrimesas
seriousasDasseys.TheConstitutionisnotoffendedbysuch
policetacticsasencouragingthesubjecttotellthetruth,bluff
ing about what the police already know, or confronting the
subject with what the police know from physical evidence
andwiththeinternalcontradictionsandimprobabilitiesinhis
story.Todaysdecisionwillmakesomepoliceinvestigations
considerablymoredifficult,withlittlegainedintermsofjus
tice.
I. TheTotalityoftheCircumstances
My colleagues describe the critical March 1, 2006 inter
view of Dassey as intimidating and anxiety producing.
Anteat83.IsuspectthesourceofanyanxietyDasseyfeltwas
hisguilt,notthecircumstancesofarelativelygentleandnon
coerciveinterview.Themajorityfocusesinpainstakingdetail
onafewfactorsthatweighinfavoroffindingthatDasseys
108 No.163397
confessionwasnotvoluntary.Manyotherfactorsweighinfa
voroffindingitwasvoluntary.Thecircumstancesthathave
mostconcernedcourtsandthathavecontributedmosttovol
untariness jurisprudencesuch as physical abuse, threaten
ingbehavior,orprolongedquestioningweresimplyabsent
here.
Considerthesecircumstances:theinvestigatorsdidnotin
itiallyconsiderDasseyasuspectinthemurder.Still,theyhad
goodreasontothinkthatheknewmoreabouthisuncleSte
venAverysinvolvementinTeresaHalbachsdeaththanDas
seyhadtoldthemthusfar.TwodaysbeforethecriticalMarch
1interview,Dasseyhadtoldinvestigatorsthathesawhuman
body partstoes, a hand, a forehead, and a stomachin
AverysbonfirethepreviousHalloween.Dasseyhadalsosaid
thatAverytoldhimhestabbedTeresa.Inaseparateconver
sationthatevening,Dasseyhadtoldtheinvestigatorsthathe
helpedAverycleanadarkredstainonhisgaragefloor.
OnMarch1,theinvestigatorsobtainedconsentfromDas
seysmothertointerviewhimonceagain.TheyreadMiranda
warningstoDassey,drovehimtoalocalsheriffsoffice,and
remindedhimabouttheMirandawarningsoncetheyarrived.
They offered him snacks, beverages, and restroom breaks.
During the interview, Dassey sat comfortably on a sofa. He
exhibited no signs of physical distress. The investigators
spokeinmeasuredtones.TheydidnotthreatenDassey,nor
didtheyuseintimidatingorcoercivelanguage.Theycoaxed
andencouragedhimtotellthetruth.TheymadeDasseyno
specificguarantees.Infact,theytoldhimattheoutset:We
cantmakeanypromises.
Theinterviewlastedaboutthreehoursintotal.Fiftyfour
minutesintotheconversation,Dasseytoldtheofficersthathe
No.163397 109
grantedwithrespecttoanyclaimthatwasadjudicatedonthe
merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of
theclaim(1)resultedinadecisionthatwascontraryto,or
involvedanunreasonableapplicationof,clearlyestablished
Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court or (2)
resultedinadecisionthatwasbasedonanunreasonablede
termination of the facts . 28 U.S.C. 2254(d). It is not
enoughthatafederalcourtmighthavedecidedthecasedif
ferentlyinthefirstinstance.Rather,thefederalcourtmustbe
confidentthatthedecisionofthestatecourtwassobeyond
thepaleastoconstituteanerrorwellunderstoodandcom
prehendedinexistinglawbeyondanypossibilityforfairminded
disagreement.Richter,562U.S.at103(emphasisadded).
Mycolleaguesinsist,repeatedly,thattheyhavekeptthe
strictconstraintsoftheAEDPAforefrontintheirminds.E.g.,
anteat27.YetnoSupremeCourtcase,nocasedecidedinthis
circuit,andindeednocasecitedbythepartiesorthemajority
hasfoundaconfessioninvoluntaryonfactsresemblingthese,
evenwherethesubjectisajuvenile.
NeverbeforehastheSupremeCourtorthiscourtsignaled
thatpolicebluffsaboutwhattheyknowmayrenderaconfes
sion involuntary. Neither the Supreme Court nor this court
haseverheld,asthemajorityseemstobelieve,thataninves
tigatorsvagueassurancesaboutthevalueoftellingthetruth
mayamounttofraudulentpromisesofleniency.Norhavewe
heldthatsuchstatementsmustbeviewedfromthesubjective
perspectiveofthesuspect,nomatterhowdistortedhisper
spectivemaybe.ThemajorityworriesthatDasseymayhave
taken as literal an investigators advice that honesty is the
onlythingthatwillsetyoufree,transformingthatbiblical
phraseintotheexactkindofpromiseofleniencythatcourts
No.163397 111
generallyfindcoercive.Anteat50;seeJohn8:32.Themajor
ityreachesthisconclusioninspiteofourlongrecognitionthat
thelawpermitsthepolicetopressureandcajole,concealma
terialfacts,andactivelymislead.UnitedStatesv.Rutledge,900
F.2d1127,1131(7thCir.1990).
InonetellingdeparturefromAEDPAdeference,thema
joritycitesalawreviewarticletoobserve:Expertsonconfes
sionshavenotedthatthoughcourtsarereluctanttofindthat
policeofficershaveoverwhelmedachildswillbyrepeatedly
admonishingthechildtotellthetruth,manychildrenwill
eventually hear tell the truth as, tell me what I want to
hear. Ante at 5556 (citation omitted). The majority then
suggests that Dassey found the truth either by stumbling
uponitorbyusingtheinformationtheinvestigatorshadfed
him,andassertsboldlythatitisimpossibletoreadorview
DasseysinterrogationandhaveanyconfidencethatDasseys
confessionwastheproductofhisownfreewillratherthanhis
will being overborne. Ante at 56. The majority invites the
reader to scrutinize Dasseys confession with this key in
hand.
I read (and see) the evidence quite differently: Dasseys
confessionappearstohavebeentheproductofaguiltycon
science, coaxed rather gently from him with standard, non
coercive investigative techniques. Even assuming, however,
thatthemajoritysinterpretationisplausible,ourjobasafed
eralcourtreviewingastateconvictionunder2254(d)isnot
toconsultscholarlyliteratureinsearchofnewbestpractices.
Ournarrowertaskistodeterminewhetherthestatecourt
decisionwasbasedeitheronanunreasonableapplicationof
clearly established law as handed down by the Supreme
Courtoronanunreasonableviewofthefacts.Apartfromthe
112 No.163397
uncontroversialobservationthatjuvenileconfessionsshould
betreatedwithcare,seeJ.D.B.v.NorthCarolina,564U.S.261,
269 (2011) (direct appeal of Miranda custody decision), the
majority cites no Supreme Court authority in support of its
interpretivekey.1
B. DeferenceorCritiquingOpinions?
Earlyinitsopinion,themajoritywritesthatthestateap
pellatecourtdidnotidentifythecorrecttestatallanddidnot
applyitcorrectly.Anteat23.Thecriticismismisplaced.The
statecourtcorrectlyrecognizedthat(1)aconfessionsvolun
tariness turns on the totality of the circumstances and (2)
theanalysisinvolvesabalancingofthedefendantspersonal
characteristicsagainstthepolicepressuresusedtoinducethe
statements.ThatstandardfitscomfortablywiththeSupreme
1Themajoritysupportstheneedforspecialcareinjuvenileconfession
casesbycitingstudiesofexonerateddefendantsshowingthatfalsecon
fessionsaremorecommonbyjuvenilesandmentallyillorintellectually
deficientsuspects. Anteat 3234. False confessionsare a real phenome
non, and even one is very troubling. Yet we should not conclude from
thesestudiesofexonerateddefendantsthatthereisanepidemicoffalse
confessions.Themorerelevantdenominatorinthefractionisallconfes
sions.Thatnumberisnoteasytoestimate,butwecanestimateaconserva
tivelowerboundaryforit.BureauofJusticeStatisticsreportsonFelony
Defendantsin Large Urban Counties tally violentfelony convictions by
guiltypleainjustthenations75largestcounties.(Themostrecentreport
isBrianA.Reaves,U.S.DeptofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics,Felony
Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 Statistical Tables (2013),
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc09.pdf.) The majoritys statis
ticsreport227demonstrablyfalseconfessionsfrom1989to2016.Fromthe
BJSreports,wecanestimatethereweremorethan1.5millionguiltypleas
toviolentfeloniesoverthatperiod.Soforeveryonedemonstrablyfalse
confession over those years, there were more than 6,500 guilty pleas to
violentfeloniesinjustthose75largestcounties.
No.163397 113
CourtsexplanationinWithrow:courtslooktothetotalityof
circumstancestodeterminewhetheraconfessionwasvolun
tary.Thosepotentialcircumstancesincludethecrucialele
mentofpolicecoercion;thelengthoftheinterrogation;itslo
cation; its continuity; the defendants maturity; education;
physicalcondition;andmentalhealth.Theyalsoincludethe
failureofpolicetoadvisethedefendantofhisrightstoremain
silentandtohavecounselpresentduringcustodialinterroga
tion.507U.S.at69394(citationsomitted).Thisfactsensitive
balancingtestapplieswhetherthesubjectisamatureadultor
anintellectuallychallengedhighschoolstudent.SeeGilbertv.
Merchant,488F.3d780,793(7thCir.2007)([I]tisthetotality
ofthecircumstancesunderlyingajuvenileconfession,rather
thanthepresenceorabsenceofasinglecircumstance,thatde
termines whether or not the confession should be deemed
voluntary.)(collectingcases).
ThemajoritysrealconcernseemstobethattheWisconsin
CourtofAppealsonlypaidlipservicetothecorrectstandard
but did not apply it seriously. The majority writes that the
state appellate court listed Dasseys age, education and IQ,
butitneverevaluatedthosefactorstodeterminewhether
theyaffectedthevoluntarinessofDasseysconfession.Ante
at28.Likewise,themajoritywritesthatthestatecourtana
lyzedsomeoftheinvestigatorsinterrogationtechniques,but
itneverevaluatedorassessedhowthosetechniquesaffected
thevoluntarinessof[Dasseys]confession.Id.Elsewherethe
majoritycomplainsthatthestateappellatecourtaddressed
thevoluntarinessoftheconfessionintwoshortparagraphs.
Anteat48.Themajorityalsowritesthatthelessastatecourt
says,thelessafederalcourtcanascertainthatthestateactu
allyappliedatotalityofthecircumstancesevaluation.Ante
at50.Themajorityseemstoexpectlonger,moredetailed,and
114 No.163397
to[sixteenyearolds]benefit,buttheirremarksinthisre
gardwerefarfromthreateningorcoercive).
ThemajorityacknowledgesthatinDasseyscase,thein
vestigators never made the type of explicit and specific
promise of leniency that an adult of ordinary intelligence
mightunderstandasapromise.Anteat83.Thatsright.The
investigatorsstatementswerecomparabletothosepermitted
inVillalpandoandRutledge.Theinvestigatorsmadevagueas
surances that honest cooperation would make things easier
forDasseyifthisgoestotrial;thatthehonestpersonisthe
onewhosgonnagetabetterdealoutofeverything;andthat
honestyistheonlythingthatwillsetyoufree.Oneinvesti
gatorsaidattheverybeginningoftheinterview,beforeDas
seyhadconfessedtoanything,thatfromwhatImseeing
Im thinking youre all right. OK, you dont have to worry
aboutthings.Buttheotherthencautioned:Wecantmake
anypromisesbutwellstandbehindyounomatterwhatyou
did.
At no point did the investigators assure Dassey that he
wouldescapeprosecutionorreceivesomeotherspecificben
efitifhecooperatedorconfessed.Cf.Sharpv.Rohling,793F.3d
1216,1235(10thCir.2015)(subjectswillwasoverbornewhere
detectivepromisedhershewouldnotgotojailifsheadmitted
toherparticipationincrime);Henryv.Kernan,197F.3d1021,
1027(9thCir.1999)(subjectswillwasoverbornewhereofficer
No.163397 119
falselyinformedhimthatwhathesaidcantbeusedagainst
yourightnow).2
The majority insists, however, that whether police have
madeanimpermissiblefalsepromiseofleniency(orofany
thing else) depends on the subjective perception of the sus
pect, no matter how distorted or inaccurate his perception
mightbe.Thus,toDasseywithhisborderlineIQandsug
gestiblepersonalitytheinvestigatorsvagueassuranceshad
inthemajoritysviewthesameeffectasafraudulentprom
ise.Anteat83.
TheSupremeCourtstotality ofthe circumstances test
takesaccountofthesubjectivecharacteristicsofthedefendant
(e.g.,hisage,health,andeducation).YetnoSupremeCourt
casehasheldthataconfessionshouldbedeemedinvoluntary
ifthesubjectbelievedhoweverimprobablyorbaselessly
thathehadbeenpromisedagetoutofjailfreecard.Nocase
requiresthereviewingcourttodisregardwhatpoliceactually
said(onavideorecording,no less)infavorofwhatthe de
fendant,withthebenefitoftime,hindsight,andsavvycoun
sel,sayshethoughtthepolicesaid.Ataminimum,reasonable
juristscoulddisagreewhethertheabstractassurancesbythe
2
Inoralargument,weaskedDasseyscounseltoidentifyacaseany
caseinwhichahabeaspetitionerwasgrantedreliefduetopolicerepre
sentations similar to those made here. Counsel cited A.M. v. Butler, 360
F.3d787(7thCir.2004),asplitpaneldecisionthatisreadilydistinguisha
bleandillustrateshowmuchofastretchDasseysclaimis.InA.M.,the
subjectwasjustelevenyearsold,andhewasnotproperlyMirandized.Id.
at793.Hetestifiedattrialthattheinterviewingofficermadehimaspecific
false promise: that if he confessed to beating and stabbing to death his
elderlyneighbor,Godandthepolicewouldforgivehimandhecouldgo
home in time for his brothers birthday party. Id. at 794. Investigators
madenosuchfalsepromisetoDassey.
120 No.163397
investigatorsherewere,incontext,falseandfraudulent.That
aloneshoulddefeatanyclaimforhabeasrelief.
Evenifweweretoapproachthequestiondenovo,thereis
goodreasontoreviewanyallegedpromisesbyinvestigators
fromanobjectivepointofview,atleastwhenwehavehard
evidenceofwhatwassaid(andwhatwasnot).Peoplewho
commit brutal crimes of the sort Dassey was convicted of
committingtendtobemaladjustedanddetachedfromsocial
norms.Itshouldcomeasnosurprisethatajuvenilewhohelps
torapeahelplessvictim,capsoffthatexperiencebywatching
televisionandchattingwithhisuncle,andthenhelpstomur
dertheirvictim,asDasseysaidhedid,liveswithadistorted
worldview.Dasseyssubjectiveimpressionofwhatpolicetold
himshouldnotbedecisive.3
Second,themajoritysuggeststhatDasseywasatgreater
riskofbeingmisledbytheinvestigatorsvaguemoralsupport
3
Dassey brought his involuntary confession claim under both 28
U.S.C.2254(d)(1),decisionscontrarytoorunreasonablyapplyingclearly
establishedfederallaw,and(d)(2),decisionsbasedonunreasonablefac
tualdeterminations.ThemajorityandIbothfocusontheSupremeCourts
totality of the circumstances test and related doctrinal considerations
under(d)(1).Themajorityalsosaysinseveralplacesthatthestatecourts
madeunreasonablefactualfindingsunder(d)(2)butacknowledgesthat
theanalysesunder(d)(1)and(2)overlaphere.Anteat29.Thereisnodis
puteaboutwhattheinvestigatorsactuallysaid,andthediscussioninthis
sectionshowswhytheclaimshouldalsofailunder(d)(2).Thestatecourts
findingthattheinvestigatorsmadenofalsepromisesisbestunderstood
asafindingthattheymadenolegallyrelevantfalsepromises,i.e.,nospe
cificfalsepromisesofleniency,asdistinctfromvagueassurancesthatco
operationwouldbeinDasseysbestinterests.Dasseyhasnotshownby
clear and convincing evidence that the finding was wrong. See
2254(e)(1).
No.163397 121
derlineintellectualabilities;liketheinvestigatorshere,thepo
liceinEtherlyassuredthejuvenilethatitwouldgobetterfor
himincourtifhecooperated.Id.at658.
InCarterv.Thompson,690F.3d837,839(7thCir.2012),we
denied relief to a habeas petitioner who at age sixteen en
duredaninterrogationlastingfiftyfivehoursintotal.During
gapsintheinterrogation,thepetitionersleptonabench,with
outapillow,ablanket,orachangeofclothes.Id.at841;see
alsoMurdockv.Dorethy,846F.3d203,210(7thCir.2017)(deny
ing relief to sixteenyearold who was interrogated over
sevenhourperiod);Gilbert,488F.3dat78486(denyingrelief
tofifteenyearoldwhowaskeptfromhismotherandinter
rogatedoverninehourperiod);Hardawayv.Young,302F.3d
757, 766 (7th Cir. 2002) (denying relief to fourteenyearold
who was interviewed over sixteenhour period and aban
donedforlengthyintervalsininterrogationroom).
Themajoritydescribesthesecasesbutmakesnorealeffort
toreconcilethemwiththereliefitgrantsDassey.Instead,it
criticizestheWisconsinCourtofAppealsforfailingtoelabo
rate on all the factors the majority considers important. See
anteat4041.Asexplainedabove,2254(d)doesnotauthor
izefederalcourtstocritiquestatecourtopinionssoclosely.It
is enough that the state court identified the correct legal
standardandapplieditreasonablytothefactsofthecase.Just
aspoliceinvestigatorswillbeleftscratchingtheirheadsafter
thisdecision,stateandfederalcourtswillbeflummoxedas
No.163397 123
theyattempttoreconcileourgrantofhabeasrelieftoDassey
withthelineofcasespointingtheotherway.
IV. TheDetailsofDasseysConfession
Having replaced deference to the state court with what
amountstodenovoreview,andhavingredefinedwhatcounts
asafalsepromiseofleniency,themajorityevaluatesDasseys
confession in the light most favorable to him. The majority
opinionhighlightsthemomentswhenDasseyseemedmost
hesitantorambivalent.
Ihavenoquarrelwiththemajoritysconsiderationofthose
moments.WeneedtoconsiderDasseysstrongestarguments
aswellasthestrongestargumentsadvancedbytheState.At
a few points, the investigators questions were so assertive
andleadingthatitisdifficulttotellwhetherDasseymadean
honestattemptatatruthfulanswerorsimplyofferedupthe
answerhebelievedtheinvestigatorswerefishingfor.
A good example: the investigators believed that Teresa
Halbachhadbeenshotinthehead,adetailthathadnotbeen
reportedinthemedia.(Aburntfragmentofherskullrecov
eredfromthefirepithadtracesofleadonit.)IfDasseyknew
thatTeresahadbeenshotinthehead,thatknowledgewould
tendtocorroboratehisstory.TheinvestigatorsaskedDassey,
[W]hat else did you do? Come on. Something with the
head.Dasseyfloundered,volunteeringthathisuncleAvery
cutoffsomeofTeresashairandpunchedherintheheadand
that heDasseyslit Teresas throat. Apparently exasper
ated,oneinvestigatorsaid:Allright,Imjustgonnacomeout
andaskyou.Whoshotherinthehead?Averydid,Dassey
replied,addingthathedidnotvolunteertheinformationbe
causehecouldntthinkofit.Itsreasonabletobeskeptical
124 No.163397
Whileittookmorethanalittlecoaxingfromtheinvestiga
torsbeforeDasseyadmittedthathetoorapedTeresa,Dassey
soon provided quite specific details about his role in the
crime.HesaidthatTeresabeggedhimtodotherightthing;
that Avery, conversely, praised him for doing a good job;
thathehelpedAverytieupTeresa;andthatheslitherthroat
andcutherhair.Dasseydescribedthebrutalcremation,re
callinghowheandAverycarriedTeresasbodytotheburnpit
andcoveredherwithbranchesandtires.
WhentheinvestigatorsaskedDasseyhowheandAvery
cleanedthecrimescene,herecountedtheirefforts:Wethrew
gason[apoolofblood]sohecouldgetitoff.Thenhetried
paintthinnerandthenhewenttobleachtogetitoffand
hewentlikehewassprayingit.Ithoughthegotitonthe
flooranditsplasheduponmypants.Theinvestigators
retrieved Dasseys pants from his home. Sure enough, they
werestainedwithbleach.
Inadditiontoansweringopenendedquestionsinspecific
andincriminatingdetail,Dasseyresistedseverallinesofin
quiry.Thosepointsofresistancegavethestatecourtssubstan
tialreasontofindthatDasseyswillwasnotoverborne.Recall
that the investigators were keenly interested in any infor
mationDasseycouldofferabouthowandwhenTeresaHal
bachwasshot.TheyaskedhimhowmanytimesheshotTe
resa.Zero,hereplied.Headdedthathedidnteventouch
the gun, explaining that he had been unable to shoot ever
sincehismothersexboyfriendhadshottheirsickcat.
AfterDasseyadmittedthathecutTeresashairatAverys
urging,theinvestigatorsaskedwhathadbecomeofthehair.
Dassey insisted that he did not know and did not have the
hair. Even when the investigators warned Dassey that they
126 No.163397
wouldfindthehairifhehadkeptit,heinsisted,Idontgot
noneofthehair.
Atanotherpointintheinterview,theinvestigatorsasked
DasseywhetherhesawAveryrapeTeresa.ThreetimesDas
sey said no. They repeatedly asked Dassey whether he and
AveryhadusedwireshanginginthegaragetoharmTeresa;
Dasseyinsistedtheyhadnot.Herejectedtheirsuggestionthat
heandAverymighthavehungTeresafromarafter,evenafter
theinvestigatorspointedoutthattheworstwasoverand
nothinghesaidwouldsurprisethem.
In one of the most direct tests of Dasseys suggestibility,
theinvestigatorstoldhimfalselythatTeresahadatattooon
herstomachandaskedhimifherememberedit.Dasseysaid
no. They pressed Dassey, asking if he disagreed with them.
Dasseyreplied:NobutIdontknowwhereitwas.IfDassey
wereasoverwhelmedbythepolicequestioningasthemajor
ityseemstobelieve,surelyhewouldhavesimplyagreedthat
Teresahadastomachtattooandthathehadkeptherhair
andthathehadhungherfromtherafters,andsoon.
Tobesure,Dasseysconfessionwasnotasmoothandcon
sistentstory.Therewereholesinthenarrative.Dasseywaf
fledandbacktracked.Thesequenceofeventswasnotalways
clear.Themajority,reviewingtheinterviewwithitsdefense
friendly key in hand, takes these inconsistencies as proof
thatDasseywasnotrecountingrealmemoriesbutonlytelling
theinvestigatorswhathebelievedtheywantedtohear.
AsanalternativekeyforreviewingDasseysconfession,
one might consider that the sixteenyearold subject was
wracked by guilt and was finally coming to grips with the
gravityofhiscrimes.Hehadbeenledtodothingssoawful
No.163397 127
that,inthemonthsfollowingthecrimes,hestayedsilentbut
lostfortypoundsandhadfitsofuncontrolledsobbing.
OwninguptowhathedidproveddifficultforDassey,as
it surely would for anyone with a trace of a conscience. He
hadtroublegettingthewordsout.Giventhevagariesofhu
man memory, it is not surprising that some details and se
quenceshadbecomegarbledashereplayedthoseviolentand
grislyimagesoverandoverinhismindforfourmonths.Itis
easytounderstandwhy,bythetimeoftheMarch1interview,
Dasseywasnotsureabouteverythingthathadhappenedand
inwhatorder.
WhileDasseysrecollectionofthesequenceofeventswas
hazy, he remembered some details vividly. He remembered
colors,sounds,andsmells.Herememberedhisunclestand
inginthedoorframeinhiswhiteshirtandredshorts,beck
oninghiminside.HerememberedTeresaHalbach,lyingalive
onhisunclesbedandlaterdeadinthebackofthejeep.He
rememberedherscreams.Herememberedhertellinghimhe
didnothavetorapeherandheshoulddotherightthing.He
remembered her blood pooling on the garage floor. He re
memberedtheodorofherburningflesh.Andheremembered
whyhecommittedthecruelactshedescribed:hewantedto
seehow[sex]felt.
Themajoritywritesthatthelackofphysicalevidencewas
theweakestpartoftheStatescase.Anteat99100.Thephys
icalevidencedoesnotproveordisproveDasseysguiltorthe
accuracyofhisconfession.Still,theStateofferedsubstantial
evidencethattendedtocorroboratesomedetailsofhiscon
fession. Examples include handcuffs and leg irons found in
Averys bedroom (corroborating Dasseys description of Te
128 No.163397
resasrape);acharredshovel,rake,andcarseat(corroborat
ing Dasseys description of the crude cremation of Teresas
body);andastipulationbyafamilyfriendthathesawAvery
andDasseystandingbyabonfireonAveryspropertyonHal
loweennightin2005,thesamenightthatTeresaandherSUV
vanishedaftersheheadedtoanappointmenttotakephoto
graphsatAverysjunkyard.
Wealsoshouldnotlosesightofthemostdamningphysi
cal evidence: the bones of Teresa Halbach, broken and
charred, buried in the ashes of Averys burn pit. The corpus
delictidoesnotpointinexorablytoDassey.Butitisgrimcor
roborationformuchofthestoryhetoldtheinvestigators.
V. Conclusion
All agree that the governing constitutional standard for
the voluntariness of a confession depends on the totality of
thecircumstances.Thestatecourtsrecognizedthatstandard
andapplieditreasonablytothefactsbeforethem.Asinmost
cases on voluntariness of confessions,relevantfactors point
in conflicting directions. A few factors and passages from
Dasseysconfessionsupportthemajoritysviewthatthecon
fessionwasnotvoluntary.Manyotherfactorsandpassages
supportthestatecourtsviewthat,overall,theconfessionwas
voluntary.TheWisconsinCourtofAppealscouldhavebeen
muchmorethoroughinitsdiscussion,butitsconclusionwas
withintheboundsofreason.Itwasnotcontrarytooranun
reasonable application of controlling Supreme Court prece
dent.Weshouldreversethedistrictcourtsgrantofthewrit
ofhabeascorpus.