MEROLILLO v. Yates
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 24564
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Merolillo was convicted in California state court of first-degree murder after disputed expert testimony about whether trauma caused the death.
- The autopsy pathologist Garber testified at the preliminary hearing but was not called at trial; his autopsy opinion was elicited during cross-examination of defense expert Herrmann.
- Garber’s opinion was the sole definitive assertion that head trauma contributed to death, and it was admitted over defense objections.
- Post-trial, Merolillo challenged the admission as a Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation; the California courts found error harmless, and the federal district court denied relief.
- The Ninth Circuit held the Confrontation Clause violation was prejudicial under Brecht and reversed, remanding to vacate the murder conviction and issue the writ.
- Key issue on appeal: whether the erroneous admission of Garber’s opinion infected the trial to a degree that requires habeas relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation Clause violation by Garber's opinion | Merolillo argues Garber's non-testifying opinion was admitted. | Yates argues no constitutional error or harmless error. | Violation established; prejudice shown under Brecht |
| Harmlessness standard for habeas review | Merolillo contends Brecht standard governs relief. | Yates contends Butler/Chapman normal standard applies. | Brecht standard applied; prejudice shown |
| Prejudice assessment under Van Arsdall factors | Garber’s opinion was central and not cumulative. | Other experts testified inconsistently; impact was limited. | Five Van Arsdall factors favor prejudice; substantial/injurious effect |
| State court’s Chapman/harmless error analysis | State court unreasonably applied Chapman; error not harmless beyond doubt. | State court correctly assessed harmlessness. | State court unreasonable; reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1980) (hearsay reliability exception; unavailable witness not required when reliable)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause does not permit testimonial statements without a face-to-face opportunity)
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2007) (Brecht applies to habeas corpus harmless-error review)
- Pulido v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2010) (apply Brecht without AEDPA Chapman constraints)
- Inthavong v. Lamarque, 420 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2005) (AEDPA/harmless error framework applied in Ninth Circuit prior to Fry)
- Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (U.S. 1946) (harmless-error standard core principle for assessing impact of errors)
- Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (U.S. 1986) (five non-exclusive factors for evaluating prejudice)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1967) (harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt standard for constitutional errors)
- Watson v. California, 46 Cal.2d 818 (Cal. 1956) (Cal. harmless error standard used on direct review)
- Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (U.S. 1968) (confrontation-rights and cross-examination at hearings)
- Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406 (U.S. 2007) (Crawford retroactivity and confrontation clause on collateral review)