In Jackson’s capital murder trial, the jury heard a taped interview in which Jackson admitted he was present when the victim was killed. Sergeant Barnes interviewed Jackson twice before the third and final interview, which was the one which was taped and entered into evidence. Prior to the first two interviews, Jackson was advised of his rights per Miranda v. Arizona, but there was no Miranda warning prior to the third interview. The second interview, which took place one year before the third, was cut short when Jackson asserted his right to remain silent. The third interview began with Barnes reminding Jackson of what he had previously said, and advising him that it would be better to “tell his side of the story.” Jackson refused to talk to Barnes six times before he finally said that he was present when the victim was killed. Following that statement, he asserted his fifth amendment privilege again, and refused to speak with Barnes any further. The appellate court here reversed the district court and granted Jackson’s habeas petition. The admission of Jackson’s statement constituted a patent Miranda violation. Jackson asserted his right to remain silent following the second interview, and no additional warnings were given. Further, it cannot be said that the error was harmless. There was corroborating evidence that Jackson had raped the victim, but not that the rape and the killing were part of a continuous transaction. The state’s only evidence that Jackson committed rape as part of one continuous transaction with the murder turned on a single piece of evidence: that Jackson was there when the coappellant pulled the trigger. Therefore the wrongful admission of the statements were clearly prejudicial.