People v. Fayed
9 Cal.5th 147
Cal.2020Background
- After filing for divorce, James Fayed arranged payment ($25,000) to employee Jose Moya to kill his wife Pamela; she was stabbed to death in a Century City parking garage on July 28, 2008. Fayed was not the triggerman but orchestrated the killing through intermediaries.
- Federal investigators had been probing Goldfinger/E‑Bullion for unlicensed money‑transmitting; Fayed was indicted federally (sealed) shortly before the murder and later detained on that federal charge. The federal indictment was dismissed to avoid interfering with the state homicide case.
- While in federal custody, Fayed made extensive incriminating admissions to a cellmate, Shawn Smith, who was cooperating with law enforcement and wore a recording device; the tape was played at trial and Smith did not testify.
- Police executed multiple searches (ranch, vehicles, computers) and intercepted communications; evidence from those searches (including laptops, thumb drives, cash, cell‑phone links) supported the prosecution’s theory linking Fayed to the murder‑for‑hire plot.
- A jury convicted Fayed of first‑degree murder and conspiracy and found special circumstances (financial gain; lying in wait); the penalty phase returned death. The Supreme Court of California affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of recorded jailhouse conversation (Massiah/Confrontation/Fifth) | Tape admissible as Fayed’s own admissions and Smith’s statements offered nonhearsay to provide context; no Massiah or Crawford violation. | Sixth Amendment attached because Fayed was in federal custody; covert agent elicited statements; Fifth/Miranda protections and confrontation clause violated. | Court held Sixth had not attached to uncharged state murder (offense‑specific rule), Miranda/Perkins analysis permitted undercover elicitation, Smith’s statements were nontestimonial/contextual, and admission was proper. |
| Fourth Amendment and search issues (cell phone, warrants, intercepted calls) | Evidence obtained lawfully or at least admissible under inevitable discovery/independent source; warrants supported by probable cause. | Warrantless manipulation of cell phone and other searches lacked probable cause; wiretap affidavit omitted material facts (defense investigator) and warrants overbroad/stale. | Court upheld rulings: cell‑phone number admissible under inevitable discovery; July 31 ranch warrant and September search supported by probable cause/totality; any alleged omissions were not material. |
| Evidentiary rulings re: federal indictment, third‑party culpability, and recorded impeachment evidence | Federal investigation evidence was relevant to motive; third‑party evidence admitted; impeachment tapes properly used; any disclosure issues were harmless. | Evidence of sealed federal indictment and other out‑of‑court statements were prejudicial/ hearsay or disclosure violations; refusal to give a third‑party‑culpability instruction was error. | Court found federal investigation evidence probative of motive and properly limited; trial court permissibly declined defensive pinpoint instruction; delayed impeachment tape admission, if error, was harmless given the record. |
| Jury misconduct, instructional claims, and sufficiency of special circumstances | Trial court’s inquiry into anonymous tips and juror contacts was inadequate; several instructional errors; insufficient evidence for lying‑in‑wait and financial‑gain special circumstances. | Juror misconduct claim presumed prejudice; CALJIC instructions misstated law; special circumstances unsupported as to intermediary payoff. | Court concluded the trial court’s investigation rebutted prejudice; CALJIC/CALCRIM mix and other instruction claims lacked prejudice or were correct; evidence supported both financial‑gain and lying‑in‑wait special circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964) (post‑indictment right to counsel prohibits government‑controlled elicitation of statements)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause limits testimonial hearsay)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Fifth Amendment procedural protections for custodial interrogation)
- Illinois v. Perkins, 496 U.S. 292 (1990) (undercover conversations with a suspect do not implicate Miranda when suspect does not know he is speaking to government agent)
- Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001) (Sixth Amendment right to counsel is offense‑specific)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) (inevitable discovery doctrine admits evidence that would have been lawfully found)
- Murray v. United States, 487 U.S. 533 (1988) (independent source and inevitable discovery principles)
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (cell‑phone searches implicate significant privacy interests)
- People v. DePriest, 42 Cal.4th 1 (2007) (California discussion of precharging rule and attachment of Sixth Amendment right)