Ocampo v. Vail
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11588
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Santana Ocampo was convicted of first-degree murder for the August 9, 2003 shooting of Julio Morales-Castro in Tacoma, Washington.
- The State's theory tied Ocampo to the van with a Surreño 13 gang member; Ocampo claimed he was at a Quinceañera alibi.
- Detectives testified that a key witness, Vasquez, made statements to police corroborating others' accounts, though Vasquez did not testify at trial.
- Vela and Hernandez testified; Hernandez admitted involvement and was a witness against Ocampo, while Vasquez remained unavailable at trial.
- The Washington Court of Appeals rejected Ocampo’s Confrontation Clause claim, and the federal district court denied habeas relief; the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded for a writ of habeas corpus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Vasquez's statements to police were testimonial | Ocampo argues Vasquez's statements were testimonial under Crawford and therefore subject to confrontation. | State courts found no Crawford violation because Webb did not testify to Vasquez's substantive statements and the outline was permissible. | Yes; Vasquez's statements were testimonial and their substance was conveyed at trial. |
| Whether the detectives' testimony about Vasquez violated the Confrontation Clause by admitting the substance of absent witnesses' statements | Ocampo contends the detectives introduced the substance of Vasquez's statements in violation of Crawford. | State court treated the testimony as non-substantive outline of Vasquez's statements. | Yes; the detectives' testimony conveyed the critical substance of Vasquez's statements, violating Confrontation Clause. |
| Whether the Confrontation Clause error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | The error was prejudicial given weak corroboration and the prosecutor's closing references to Vasquez. | Conviction could be upheld if the rest of the evidence was strong enough to overcome the error. | No; the error had substantial and injurious influence on the verdict; Brecht standard applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation required for testimonial out-of-court statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (testimonial nature of police-elicited statements)
- Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (U.S. 1990) (out-of-court statements trigger confrontation or hearsay safeguards)
- Meises v. United States, 645 F.3d 5 (1st Cir. 2011) (cross-examination essential even when not all statements are admitted)
- Hutchins v. Wainwright, 715 F.2d 512 (11th Cir. 1983) (substance of out-of-court statements implicated violates confrontation)
- Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (U.S. 1993) (harmlessness standard for constitutional errors in habeas)
- Fry v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (U.S. 2007) (application of Brecht harmlessness after AEDPA decisions)
- Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2004) (state court fact-finding and AEDPA standards)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (U.S. 2000) (unreasonable application of law under AEDPA standard)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2009) (explicit confrontation rights regarding documentary affidavits)
- Mason v. Scully, 16 F.3d 38 (2d Cir. 1994) (pre-Crawford concerns on indirect statements)