Merolillo v. Yates, No. 08-56952 (9th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CasePetitioner was convicted in California state court of first degree murder and subsequently appealed the district court's denial of his federal habeas petition. Petitioner challenged the admission at trial of the non-testifying autopsy pathologist's opinion, claiming violations of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. Because the chain of causation began as tenuous, continued to be disputed and was described inconsistently by the experts, the erroneous admission of the autopsy pathologist's non-cumulative opinion testimony likely had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's verdict. Furthermore, it was impossible to say beyond a reasonable doubt of the autopsy pathologist's opinion did not contribute to petitioner's conviction. Accordingly, because the California Court of Appeal unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court Confrontation Clause jurisdiction to the facts and the error was prejudicial, the judgment of the district court was reversed and the case remanded with direction to vacate the murder conviction and issue the writ.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.