Trillo v. Biter, No. 11-15463 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of second-degree murder, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court held that a prosecutor may not suggest that jurors should vote to convict a defendant lest that defendant endanger their neighborhood. Therefore, the court concluded that the final statement made by the prosecutor was improper, but petitioner was not deprived of a fair trial because there was no reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict without the prosecutorial misstatements. The court also concluded that trial counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misstatements and for objecting to the prosecutor's statements about gang connections where petitioner suffered no prejudice. Finally, the trial court's decision to exclude testimony regarding a statement made by a witness to the victim did not violate the Constitution where there was no evidentiary corroboration at all for the witness statement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition challenging a second- degree murder conviction. The panel held that an improper comment by the prosecutor did not materially affect the fairness of the proceedings because the trial court sustained the defendant’s objection, and the trial court instructed the jury that statements made by the attorneys during trial are not evidence. The panel held that there was a sufficient basis for the prosecutor’s statements about witness inconsistencies and his implication that the witnesses had coordinated their testimony. The panel held that the prosecutor’s statements describing “reasonable doubt” as “something that makes you comfortable with your decision today,” and suggesting that jurors would “be very uncomfortable” explaining to neighbors if “we walked him,” were improper. The panel concluded, however, that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial because there is no reasonable probability that the jury would have reached a different verdict without the prosecutorial misstatements. The panel held that the defendant’s counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial statements that the defendant had removed his shirt, and that counsel’s failure to object to the prosecutor’s statements about gang connections did not prejudice the defense. The panel held that the exclusion of an uncorroborated witness statement that might have supported his self-defense theory did not violate due process.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on October 6, 2014.
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.