In re Bacigalupo
55 Cal. 4th 312
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Bacigalupo was convicted in 1987 of two murders and sentenced to death; direct appeal affirmed, then habeas petition filed.
- Habeas relief sought on claim prosecution failed to disclose evidence supporting mitigation at penalty phase due to Colombian cartel death threats.
- Referee heard 17 witnesses; found prosecution knew from confidential informant Kesselman that Angarita implicated in murders and that there was a pretrial meeting with petitioner.
- Prosecution allegedly withheld material information that could have supported a penalty-phase duress defense tied to Colombian Mafia threats.
- Trial and appellate record show the district attorney had disclaimed a drug-cartel connection; later referee found disclosure would have altered penalty-phase strategy.
- California Supreme Court granted relief, vacating the death judgment and ordering further proceedings consistent with the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a Brady violation? | Bacigalupo | People | Yes; withholding favorable, material evidence violated Brady |
| Did nondisclosure undermine the penalty-phase reliability? | Bacigalupo | People | Yes; evidence could have changed penalty verdict to life without parole |
| Would disclosure of Kesselman’s information have enabled a viable duress defense? | Bacigalupo | People | Yes; duress mitigation would have been plausible with testimony from Kesselman |
| Does a pretrial ruling that Kesselman was not a material witness excuse Brady obligations? | Bacigalupo | People | No; Brady extends to penalty evidence, not limited to guilt |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (duty to disclose favorable material evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (materiality requires reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995) (assessing materiality and total effect of nondisclosure)
- United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985) (materiality includes impact on defense preparation)
- People v. Zambrano, 41 Cal.4th 1082 (2007) (Brady material in state habeas context)
- People v. Earp, 20 Cal.4th 826 (1999) (Brady standards in California context)
- In re Sassounian, 9 Cal.4th 535 (1995) (procedural due process in habeas review and Brady)
- In re Bolden, 46 Cal.4th 107 (2009) (habeas standard and burden of proof)