Zapien v. Martel, No. 09-99023 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseA panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit amended an opinion filed November 9, 2015 and denied a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a habeas corpus petition filed by Defendant, a California state prisoner who challenged his conviction for first degree murder and sentence of death. In the amended opinion, the panel (1) rejected Defendant’s argument that the California Supreme Court unreasonably rejected his claim that he was denied due process when a prosecution investigator destroyed an audio tape found in a sealed envelope that explained defense strategy; (2) held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Defendant’s arguments that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by the trial court’s evidentiary rulings; (3) held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase or sentencing phase of trial; and (4) held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Defendant’s claim that his right to an impartial jury was violated when the trial court failed to dismiss a certain juror.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel filed an order amending an opinion filed November 9, 2015, and denying a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc, in a case in which the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of California state prisoner Conrad Zapien’s habeas corpus petition challenging his first degree murder conviction and death sentence. In the amended opinion, the panel: • rejected Zapien’s argument that the California Supreme Court unreasonably rejected his claim that he was denied due process when a prosecution investigator, who found a sealed envelope containing an audio tape explaining defense strategy, destroyed the tape. • held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Zapien’s arguments that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by (1) the trial court’s admission of statements that Zapien’s sister made at a preliminary hearing and (2) the introduction of multi-level hearsay testimony. • held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Zapien’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase. This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. ZAPIEN V. MARTEL 3 • held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Zapien’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. • held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Zapien’s claim that his right to an impartial jury was violated when the trial court failed to dismiss a juror who admitted to hearing a news report that suggested Zapien would hurt his guards if he were given the death penalty.
This opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 9, 2015.
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.