Wilson v. Cain, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary

Petitioner, a Louisiana state prisoner, was convicted for the offense of attempted manslaughter for an attack on another inmate. At issue was whether the state court unreasonably applied clearly established federal law in denying relief of petitioner's Miranda v. Arizona claim to suppress the statements he made to correctional officers. The court held that it was not objectively unreasonable for the state court to conclude that the questioning at issue was more like general on-the-scene questioning rather than a custodial interrogation of the type addressed by Mathis v. United States and Maryland v. Shatzer where the questioning was conducted by members of the prison staff, using the prison's routine immediate post-fight procedure to ensure the safety of the general prison population. Therefore, the court held that the state court's determination that Miranda warnings were not required in order to admit petitioner's incriminating statements as evidence in his trial did not constitute an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal Law and federal habeas relief was denied.