Zapien v. Martel, No. 09-99023 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief. The court rejected petitioner's argument that he was denied due process when a prosecution investigation destroyed the defense strategy tape; petitioner's confrontation rights were not violated when the trial court admitted various statements from petitioner's sister; petitioner's confrontation rights were not violated by the introduction at trial of multi-level hearsay testimony; the court rejected petitioner's ineffective assistance of counsel claims and petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase; and petitioner's right to an impartial jury was not violated when the trial court failed to dismiss a juror who admitted to hearing a news report that suggested petitioner would hurt his guards if he were given the death penalty. Because the California Supreme Court's decision was reasonable, the court affirmed the district court's judgment.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. 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. 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. The panel 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. The panel held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Zapien’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the guilt phase. The panel held that the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably reject Zapien’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at the sentencing phase. ZAPIEN V. MARTEL 3 The panel 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.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on December 16, 2016.
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.