Demetrulias v. Davis, No. 14-99000 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
In 1995, Demetrulias was sentenced to death for the fatal stabbing of Miller. Demetrulias claimed that he killed Miller in a struggle initiated by Miller when Demetrulias visited his home to collect a $40 debt. The prosecution maintained that Demetrulias stabbed Miller in the commission of a robbery.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief. Even if Demetrulias’s argument that the trial court violated his due process rights by allowing the prosecution to introduce victim character evidence in a preemptive attack on Demetrulias’s assertion of self-defense. is not barred by procedural default, the admission of the statements did not amount to constitutional error. The challenged testimony was brief and non-inflammatory and did not seek to portray Demetrius as evil but portrayed the victims as non-violent, Demetrulias also argued that if the court had given a claim-of-right instruction, the jury would have had a legal basis for finding that Demtrulias intended to collect a debt, not to rob Miller, thereby negating the specific intent to prove robbery, and would have acquitted Demetrulias of the sole special circumstance charge. Any error in failing to give the instruction was harmless as was any error in failing to give a requested instruction of voluntary manslaughter based on heat-of-passion. The California Supreme Court could reasonably have concluded that trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision in not presenting evidence of organic brain damage and mental health diagnoses.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Gregory Spiros Demetrulias’s habeas corpus petition governed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, in a case in which a jury convicted Demetrulias of first-degree murder, found that Demetrulias killed the victim in the course of a robbery, and imposed the death penalty. Demetrulias argued that the trial court violated his right to due process when it allowed the prosecution to introduce victim character evidence during its case in chief, in a preemptive attack on Demetrulias’s assertion of self- defense. The panel held that even assuming its review is not barred by the procedural default doctrine, the admission of the statements about the victims’ characters did not rise to the level of constitutional error, where the challenged testimony was brief and non-inflammatory, the testimony did not seek to portray Demetrius as evil but rather the victims as non-violent, and the prosecution’s case against Demetrius was quite strong. Demetrulias contended that the trial court denied him due process by refusing to give his requested claim-of-right instruction. The crux of Demetrulias’s claim was that if the trial court had given the instruction, the jury would have had a legal basis for finding that Demtrulias intended to collect a debt the victim owed to him—and not to rob him of his DEMETRULIAS V. DAVIS 3 money or possessions—thereby negating the specific intent to prove robbery, such that the jury would have acquitted Demetrulias of the sole special circumstance charge. The panel held that based on the facts presented to the jury, the California Supreme Court did not unreasonably determine that any error in failing to give the instruction was harmless under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). Demetrulias contended that the trial court violated his due process rights when it refused to give his requested instruction of voluntary manslaughter based on heat of passion. Assuming error, the California Supreme Court concluded that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt under Chapman. The panel held that the California Supreme Court’s conclusion was reasonable. Demetrulias asserted that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective at the penalty phase of his trial by failing to present mitigating evidence of organic brain damage and mental health diagnoses. Because the California Supreme Court summarily denied this claim on the merits, Demetrulias can prevail only if he shows that there was no reasonable basis for the California Supreme Court’s decision. The panel held that the California Supreme Court could reasonably have concluded that trial counsel made a reasonable strategic decision in not presenting this evidence. The panel therefore did not need to address whether Demetrulias was prejudiced by any deficiency or whether any evidentiary hearing is warranted. Demetrulias contended that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s guilt and penalty error deprived him of a fair trial by preventing him from effectively defending against the prosecution’s felony murder charge. The panel concluded that because none of Demetrulias’s claims rise to the level of 4 DEMETRULIAS V. DAVIS constitutional error, there is nothing to accumulate to a level of a constitutional violation.
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.