## Facts

- Brendan Dassey, age 16, was investigated for involvement in the 2005 rape and murder of Teresa Halbach and mutilation of her corpse.
- During custodial questioning, Dassey gave a videotaped confession that became central evidence against him.
- Dassey had limited intellectual ability and minimal prior experience with law enforcement.
- Investigators provided Miranda warnings; Dassey spoke with officers after receiving the warnings and with his mother’s consent.
- The interview was conducted without physical coercion or intimidation and in a relatively calm setting.
- Officers made generalized statements suggesting honesty would help, but did not make specific promises of leniency.
- Dassey’s statements contained inconsistencies; he sometimes resisted or corrected officers’ suggested details and also supplied inculpatory details in response to open-ended questions.
- Wisconsin courts upheld the convictions, determining that the confession was voluntary under a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.

## Issues

1. Whether the Wisconsin Court of Appeals unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent on voluntariness, or unreasonably determined the facts, such that relief was available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
2. How AEDPA’s deferential standard applies to the fact-intensive totality-of-the-circumstances test when the confession is obtained from a juvenile with cognitive limitations.

## Decision

- The en banc Seventh Circuit reversed the district court and denied habeas relief.
- The court held that, even if the voluntariness question was close, the state court’s determination that the confession was voluntary was not objectively unreasonable under § 2254(d).
- The court emphasized that federal habeas relief is unavailable merely because a federal court would reach a different conclusion on de novo review.
- The panel decision granting relief was vacated when rehearing en banc was granted.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), a federal court may grant habeas relief only if the state court decision is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law, or rests on an unreasonable factual determination.
- Voluntariness of a confession is evaluated under the totality of the circumstances; the Supreme Court’s voluntariness framework is general, which broadens the range of reasonable state-court applications on habeas review.
- Juvenile status and cognitive limitations are significant voluntariness factors, but do not create a per se rule of involuntariness; they must be weighed with all circumstances.
- Generalized encouragement to tell the truth, absent specific promises of leniency, does not automatically render a confession involuntary.
- Where fairminded jurists could disagree about voluntariness on the record, AEDPA requires denial of federal habeas relief.

## Conclusion

The en banc Seventh Circuit held that AEDPA deference controlled and that Wisconsin’s determination that Dassey’s confession was voluntary fell within the range of reasonable applications of Supreme Court voluntariness precedent, requiring denial of habeas relief.


Dassey v. Dittmann, 877 F.3d 297 (7th Cir. 2017) (en banc)