Petrocelli v. Baker, No. 14-99006 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CasePetitioner, convicted of robbery and murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of relief with respect to petitioner's conviction, but reversed with respect to the death sentence. The panel held that, even if the State had not waived its defense, admission of psychiatric testimony during the penalty phase violated petitioner's Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981), and that the violation had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury's decision to impose the death sentence. In this case, the psychiatrist failed to seek or obtain permission from defense counsel to visit or evaluate the client. The court rejected petitioner's remaining claims.
Court Description: Habeas Corpus / Death Penalty. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of Tracy Petrocelli’s pre-AEDPA habeas corpus petition with respect to his Nevada state conviction for robbery and first-degree murder, and reversed the denial of the petition with respect to his death sentence. The panel held that because Petrocelli failed to invoke his right to counsel unambiguously, his April 19 interrogation was not conducted in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), or Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), and trial counsel was therefore not ineffective in failing to move to suppress testimony as fruit of the interrogation. The panel rejected Petrocelli’s contention that use at trial of his statements to detectives on April 20 and 27 violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Because the State used the statements only for impeachment, the panel rejected Petrocelli’s contention that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated by the taking of his statements during interrogations at which his appointed counsel was not present. The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that his statements were involuntary. The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Petrocelli failed to exhaust his challenge to the jury instruction defining premeditation and deliberation. PETROCELLI V. BAKER 3 The panel held that the State waived any defense to Petrocelli’s contention that the admission of psychiatric testimony during the penalty phase violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 (1981). The panel held that even if the State had not waived its defense, admission of the testimony violated Estelle, where the psychiatrist, acting at the request of the prosecutor, visited Petrocelli in jail to determine his competency to stand trial, failed to provide Miranda warnings, did not seek or obtain permission from Petrocelli’s appointed counsel to visit or evaluate him, and testified that Petrocelli was dangerous and incurable. The panel concluded that the violation had a substantial and injurious effect on the jury’s decision to impose the death sentence. Concurring, Judge Christen wrote separately because, in her view, even if the State could show that the prosecutor’s tactics had not prejudiced the jury’s verdict, Petrocelli’s case is one of the very few in which deliberate prosecutorial misconduct and egregious trial errors warrant habeas relief.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on August 23, 2017.
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.