Santana Ocampo v. Eldon Vail

Filing

FILED OPINION (WILLIAM C. CANBY, JOHN T. NOONAN and MARSHA S. BERZON) REVERSED AND REMANDED. Judge: MSB Authoring. FILED AND ENTERED JUDGMENT. [7779447]

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 1 of 37

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SANTANA OCAMPO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
ELDON VAIL,
Respondent-Appellee.





No. 08-35586
D.C. No.
3:07-cv-05671-FDB
OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Franklin D. Burgess, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
August 2, 2010—Seattle, Washington
Filed June 9, 2011
Before: William C. Canby, Jr., John T. Noonan and
Marsha S. Berzon, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Berzon

7981

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 2 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

7985

COUNSEL
Suzanne Lee Elliott, Seattle, Washington, for the petitionerappellant.
Robert M. McKenna, Attorney General of Washington, and
Gregory J. Rosen, Assistant Attorney General, Olympia,
Washington, for the respondent-appellee.

OPINION
BERZON, Circuit Judge:
Following a jury trial in Washington state court, Santana
Ocampo was found guilty of first-degree murder for the

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 3 of 37

7986

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

August 9, 2003, fatal shooting of Julio Morales-Castro.
Ocampo maintains that his constitutional right to confront
witnesses was denied in his jury trial by the admission of testimony by law enforcement officers regarding statements
made by a potential witness who did not testify. The district
court denied his federal petition for habeas corpus relief. We
reverse.
I.
Julio Morales-Castro was fatally shot in the head on the
evening of August 9, 2003, while sitting in his car outside a
pool hall in Tacoma, Washington. Members of the Hispanic
gang Surreño 13 frequently “hung out” in the area. A witness
at the scene reported seeing a blue minivan driving away after
the shooting; other witnesses reported seeing three young,
male, Hispanic gang members running from the scene.
The primary issue at trial was whether Ocampo was present
at the scene of the crime. The prosecution claimed that
Ocampo was in the van and, with a Surreño 13 gang member
named Jose Hernandez,1 attempted to steal Morales-Castro’s
car before shooting him. Ocampo’s defense was that he was
at a party, a Quinceañera,2 the entire time.
Detectives investigating the shooting showed photos of
several Surreño 13 gang members to witnesses, who identified Hernandez as one of the young men running from the scene.3
1

Hernandez testified that he was not a gang member. But both the prosecution and the defense maintained that he was, and detectives explained
that he was in their reports as a Surreño 13 gang member or a known associate of the gang.
2
A Quinceañera is a coming-of-age ceremony held by some Latin
Americans on a girl’s fifteenth birthday.
3
Witnesses also identified a gang member named Nick Solis as one of
the young men running from the scene. Detectives did not follow up on
this lead because Hernandez told them that Solis was not present. Whether
Hernandez’s claim that only he and Ocampo were present at the shooting
was believable, and whether the detectives had adequately corroborated
that Ocampo was present and Solis was not, was a major issue in the trial.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 4 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

7987

Hernandez implicated Ocampo and led detectives to Baldemar Vela and Mesial Vasquez, who were also interviewed.
At trial, Detective Webb testified that during his first interview with police, Hernandez named the person who shot
Morales-Castro. Webb went on to state that, on the basis of
this information, he drafted a search warrant for Ocampo’s
residence and arrested Ocampo when the search warrant was
served. Webb also reported that on the basis of the information provided by Hernandez, he believed Ocampo was the
shooter.
Hernandez also testified at the trial. He named Ocampo as
the shooter, maintaining that his factual account at trial was
consistent with the information he provided the police in his
initial post-arrest statement.4
Another witness at Ocampo’s trial was Vela. (Both he and
Hernandez were problematic witnesses for reasons discussed
below.) Vasquez, in contrast, did not appear at trial. Instead,
two detectives were allowed to testify that his statements to
police had corroborated Hernandez’s statements to the police,
and by implication, his testimony at trial. This appeal is
focused on those detectives’ testimony about what Vasquez
had said to the police.
Although this appeal centers on the two detectives’ testimony about Vasquez, we begin by discussing Vela’s and Hernandez’s police interviews and trial testimony in detail. Their
statements and testimony are pertinent both to the merits of
the confrontation issue, for reasons that will appear, and to
assessing the degree of prejudice caused by any Confrontation
Clause violation.
4

While the defense impeached Hernandez with several inconsistencies
between his testimony and his post-arrest statement, there was no suggestion that Hernandez’s identification of Ocampo as the shooter was in any
way inconsistent with his post-arrest statement to police.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 5 of 37

7988

A.

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

Vela

Vela was reluctant to provide information to police because
he was afraid of retaliation by the Surreño 13 gang. He did
tell detectives, however, the following:
Vela, out drinking with Hernandez on the night of the
shooting, gave a ride in his van to Hernandez and two of Hernandez’s friends. When Vela stopped near the pool hall to
purchase beer, Hernandez and his two friends got out of the
van and went in one direction, while Vela walked in another.
About two minutes before Hernandez reappeared, Vela heard
what he thought was the sound of a firecracker.
When he returned from wherever he had gone, Hernandez,
nervous and sweating, found Vela outside the store and
insisted that they needed to leave because “someone was tripping on him.”5 Vela and Hernandez then took different routes
back to Vela’s van. When Vela arrived, Hernandez and his
two friends were already seated in the van. According to Vela,
he drove, and Hernandez was in the front passenger seat. As
he was driving, Vela heard someone in the backseat say, “I
was tripping, so I had to shoot him.”
After giving his story, Vela identified Hernandez from a
montage of black-and-white photographs. What happened
next is disputed: According to Vela’s trial testimony, he could
not identify the two friends with Hernandez the night of the
shooting. During his interrogation, the detectives gave him a
single, color, Polaroid photograph and asked if the person in
the photograph was one of Hernandez’s friends. Vela testified
that when he told the detectives that he did not know, they
responded by telling Vela that the person in the photograph
had already admitted to being in the van. Vela then responded
5

Vela explained this statement as meaning “someone was messing with
him [or] something of that nature.”

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 6 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

7989

by saying, “He probably was. If he is saying he was in my
van, then he was.”
Detectives Yerbury and Ringer testified differently from
Vela. They explained that when interviewed, Vela was so
scared of gang retaliation that he talked about moving away
or joining the military. According to the detectives, Vela
“minimized his knowledge” and spoke in vague generalities.
The detectives showed Vela a photograph of Ocampo, who
was being interviewed in a different room. They did this
because they were concerned that if they waited until Ocampo
had been booked, Vela would be uncooperative and backpedal. According to the detectives, Vela readily identified
Ocampo as one of Hernandez’s two friends,6 although he did
not know if Ocampo was the one who spoke of shooting
someone.
B.

Hernandez

Hernandez agreed to testify for the State in exchange for a
second-degree murder plea agreement with a recommended
sentence of 244 months.7 He testified as follows:
On the night of the shooting, Vela gave him, Ocampo and
Vasquez a ride. When Vela stopped at the pool hall, Hernandez and Ocampo wandered off and decided to steal a car
they saw because it had valuable tires and rims. Ocampo told
Hernandez that he had a gun and would keep a lookout while
6

Before trial, the trial court denied Ocampo’s motion to suppress Vela’s
identification. The court found Vela not credible in denying he had identified Ocampo and in claiming that he had not seen Hernandez’s friends on
the night of the shooting sufficiently well to identify them.
7
Hernandez was originally offered a deal with a recommended sentence
of detention in a juvenile facility until the age of 21 in exchange for testimony against Ocampo. The state revoked the deal after Hernandez told
two juvenile detention officers that he was the shooter. After his confessions, he was recharged as an adult and agreed to the second, less favorable plea agreement.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 7 of 37

7990

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

Hernandez broke into the car. As Hernandez was walking
toward the car, Morales-Castro left the pool hall and headed
toward the same car. Hernandez then attempted to walk away,
but Ocampo urged him not to. Complying, Hernandez continued forward and stood near the front of Morales-Castro’s car
while Ocampo approached Morales-Castro and asked him for
bus money. Morales-Castro responded he had no money. He
then attempted to drive off, but Ocampo shot him in the head.
The State also called a juvenile detention officer, who testified that Hernandez had confided that he was in custody for
murder and that he was the shooter. He informed her that she
was the only one who knew the truth, and that he was going
to plead not guilty. Hernandez then told another detention
officer the same thing. The two officers decided that they had
to file a report about his confessions and did so. The State
argued to the jury that Hernandez’s confessions were lies,
designed to show off to his friends and to ensure that he was
not regarded as a snitch.
C.

Vasquez

As noted, this case centers on what Detectives Ringer and
Webb said at trial about corroborating statements made by the
other passenger in the van that night, Vasquez. Vasquez was
not available at trial because, according to the State’s “best
information . . . he and his family [had] returned to Mexico.”
Ringer had not personally interrogated Vasquez. He nonetheless testified that Vasquez’s statements helped eliminate as
suspects some individuals whom other witnesses had identified as being involved in the shooting:8
A
8

As we investigated further, we found that one of
the photographs, Jose Hernandez’s identification

The apparent double-hearsay problem presented by this scenario is not
an issue raised in this appeal.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 8 of 37

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

7991

of him, was accurate, but then some of the others were people that they knew but had not actually been involved in the shooting.
Q

Okay. How were you able to determine that?

A

Well, eventually Jose Hernandez was arrested,
he gave a statement. Later we contacted Baldemar Vela, and he gave a statement that verified
what Jose Hernandez said. And still later, Mesial
Vasquez was interviewed and he also verified
the other two. And these excluded several individuals that had been named that night [by witnesses who saw young men fleeing after the
shooting].

Q

So he verified — Baldemar and he verified Jose
Hernandez’s statement?

A

That’s my understanding, yes.

Later in his testimony, Ringer again emphasized that
Vasquez’s statements had been used to rule out people who
had previously been suspects:
Q

Now, some of the photographs that were identified by these people later turned out, at least
according to your investigation, to not be
involved in this case, right?

A

That’s correct.

Q

And the reason you say you knew that was
because of a statement given by Jose Hernandez,
right?

A

That was just part of it. Statement given by Jose
Hernandez, statement given by Baldemar Vela,
statement by Mesial Vasquez.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 9 of 37

7992

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

The prosecution later sought to use Detective Ringer’s testimony about Vasquez’s statements to confirm Hernandez’s
participation and to implicate Ocampo:
Q

Were you able to corroborate that [Hernandez]
actually was a participant?

A

Yes.

Q

How were you able to do that?

A

Through his own — his own admissions,
through Baldemar Vela, through Mesial
Vasquez.

Q

What do you mean through Mesial Vasquez?

A

My understanding, [sic] statement he gave also
indicated that [Hernandez] was present.

Q

Okay. And Mesial Vasquez would be the fourth
person in the van?

A

That’s correct.

Q

And at some point, Santana Ocampo’s name
surfaced during the course of the investigation?

A

It did.
...

Q

Were you able to corroborate that he was in the
van at the time of the shooting?

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
request a side-bar.

I am going to object,

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 10 of 37

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

...
(Jury not present.)
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your honor, with the
questioning that’s happening, I see where this is
going. They are going to bring in next a statement by
Mesial Vasquez [that] Santana Ocampo was in the
van. Mesial Vasquez is not here, we are not able to
confront this witness, don’t know where he is.
State’s not going to produce him and I want to make
sure there is no hearsay from Mesial Vasquez of my
client being in that van coming into this testimony.
Improper, it’s hearsay, and we are not able to confront this witness, who is absolutely confrontable, if
he were here.
[PROSECUTOR]: [The defense counsel] asked if
there had been any evident [sic] — actually, he made
the statement there had been no efforts to corroborate and I think that there certainly were, and I think
there certainly was, and I think there has — there
was testimony both through direct and redirect and
now in cross that indicates Mr. Vasquez’s corroborating exactly what everybody else is corroborating.
THE COURT: Well, I don’t think it opens the
door to introduce Vasquez’s statement beyond the
extent that there has already been testimony to
efforts to corroborate. I think that’s a dangerous road
to go down and certainly don’t want to have a
Crawford-related problem.
[PROSECUTOR]: I have gone as far as I intend
to go in that regard. I just have a couple more.
THE COURT:

All right.

7993

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 11 of 37

7994

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: I understand. I had to
make sure that didn’t happen.
THE COURT: Okay. We will take just a real
quick break, let the jurors finish up in there and then
we will resume.
(Recess taken.)
(Jury present.)
THE COURT:

Okay, pleased be seated.

Q

Detective Ringer, you were able to corroborate
the presence of Jose Hernandez at the scene?

A

Yes.

Q

And you were able to corroborate the presence
of Santana Ocampo at the scene —

A

Yes, we were.

Hernandez testified immediately after Detective Ringer and
named Ocampo as the shooter. His testimony clarified that he
had also named Ocampo as the shooter in his post-arrest statements to police.
Detective Webb testified shortly after Hernandez. Unlike
Detective Ringer, he had spoken directly with Vasquez about
the shooting. When he began to testify about that interview,
the defense objected to some of the questions regarding Vazquez’s interview:
Q

Did Mr. Vasquez talk to you about the murder
that occurred on August 10th?

A

He did.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 12 of 37

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

Q

Okay. Was he helpful as far as giving you information, or was he reluctant to talk?

A

Reluctantly helpful.

Q

Did he tell you the facts as he saw them and as
he knew them about what had happened on
August 10th?

A

He did.

Q

7995

Were those facts consistent with —

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I am
going to object here, we have a right to confront this
witness.
THE COURT:
tion.

I am going to sustain to the ques-

[PROSECUTOR]: I was going to ask if his statement was consistent with other statements.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
THE COURT:

Your Honor, I —

Sustained.

Other portions of Webb’s testimony, however, did indicate
that Vasquez had identified Ocampo as being present at the
shooting. For example, in discussing how he came up with a
list of clothing items for a search warrant for Ocampo’s residence, Webb testified that he “solicited information from both
Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Vasquez as to what everybody might
have been wearing that night.” Moreover, on redirect, Webb
testified that he did not show a photo montage with Ocampo’s
photo to witnesses to the shooting in part because Vasquez
had identified Ocampo as the shooter:

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 13 of 37

7996

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

Q

Detective, you indicated that you didn’t go back
and show additional photo montages which
included Santana Ocampo to witnesses after you
got statements from Mesial Vasquez, after you
got statements from Baldemar Vela and after
you got statements from Jose Hernandez. Is that
something that you would usually do when you
have three eyewitnesses indicate the shooter is,
do you then go around with pictures to —

[DEFENSE COUNSEL]:
terizes the evidence.
THE COURT:
tion.

Objection. Mischarac-

Sustain to the form of the ques-

Q

Is there a reason you didn’t go back later and
show photo montages with Santana Ocampo to
witnesses?

A

I would say we had a coconspirator that had
confessed his involvement and two additional
witnesses besides that person who implicated the
defendant and we would focus then on that.

(Emphasis added).
The importance of the two detectives’ testimony regarding
Vasquez’s interview was highlighted by the prosecution in
closing arguments. The prosecution emphasized Vasquez’s
statements:
The detectives didn’t stop with Mr. Vela. They
talked to Mesial Vasquez, it’s my understanding they
talked to him on August 27th about his whole scene
and he confirmed Jose Hernandez. He was there
driving back and forth, a shooting happened, all con-

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 14 of 37

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

7997

firmed by Mesial Vasquez, who at this point we
don’t know where he is. He’s probably left the area.
And the prosecutor went on to argue “Ladies and gentlemen,
Jose’s gone back and forth to some extent about the facts of
this, but his statements, the core of his statements, were corroborated by Mesial Vasquez, Baldemar Vela and Marcos9, as
well as physical evidence.” (Emphasis added). The prosecutor
also emphasized that “there is corroborating evidence that
Jose Hernandez was being truthful,” and that the one thing
about which Hernandez had always been consistent was that
Ocampo was the shooter. Finally, in its rebuttal, the prosecution argued that Jose Hernandez’s testimony should leave the
jury “convinced beyond a reasonable doubt [because] this . . .
fourth guy in the car backs him up.”10
Ocampo did not testify, but he presented several witnesses
who testified that he was at the Quinceañera at the time of the
shooting. The defense argued in closing that Hernandez killed
Morales-Castro and was lying to save himself, Nick Solis,
and, possibly, Vasquez. The jury, not persuaded, found
Ocampo guilty of first-degree murder.
Ocampo appealed his conviction on the ground, among others, that his right to confrontation was denied by the two
detectives’ testimony regarding statements by Vasquez. Identifying Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), as the
9

Marcos is Jose Hernandez’s older brother. He was not at the scene of
the crime, but provided information to the detectives corroborating his
brother’s version of events. His trial testimony contained contradictions as
to whether Ocampo was at the Quinceañera during the time that Hernandez was not. In closing, the defense argued that Marcos and Hernandez
could easily have concocted their story together before each spoke to the
police.
10
The State never claimed anyone other than Vasquez was in the van
with Ocampo, Hernandez, and Vela. So the context makes it clear that
“fourth guy” refers to Vasquez. The prosecutor also referred to Vasquez
as the fourth person in the van when questioning witnesses.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 15 of 37

7998

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

controlling authority, the Washington Court of Appeals held
that “Ocampo [was] not entitled to a new trial based on this
issue.” Regarding Detective Ringer’s testimony, the state
appellate court noted that Ocampo did not object to that testimony, and cited State v. Swan, 790 P.2d 610, 635 (Wash.
1990) for the proposition that “[t]he absence of a motion for
mistrial at the time of the argument strongly suggests to a
court that the argument or event in question did not appear
critically prejudicial to an appellant in the context of the
trial.” The court of appeals also cited State v. Lynn, 835 P.2d
251, 254 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992), which requires a constitutional error raised for the first time on appeal to be manifest,
and suggested that the Confrontation Clause error raised by
Ocampo was not manifest because “Detective Ringer’s testimony only implied the outlines of Vasquez’s statement.”
As to Detective Webb’s testimony, the court held that there
was no Confrontation Clause violation because “the detective
did not testify to the substance of any statements Vasquez
made.” The court also noted that Ocampo was able to crossexamine Detective Webb on whether any statements were
made.
Finally, as to the prosecutors’ closing remarks focusing on
what Vasquez had said, the court noted that Ocampo did not
object to the remarks, citing State v. Brown, 940 P.2d 546,
564-65 (Wash. 1997), for the proposition that a “defendant’s
failure to object waives improper closing remarks unless the
comments are so flagrant and ill-intentioned that the resulting
prejudice could not be alleviated by a curative instruction.”
The Washington Supreme Court denied review.
Ocampo then filed a federal habeas petition raising several
claims. Denying the petition, the district court reasoned, as to
Ocampo’s confrontation claim, that there was no Confrontation Clause problem, because (1) “no testimony as to the substance of any statements made by Mr. Vasquez” was
presented by Detective Webb; (2) allowing Detective Ring-

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 16 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

7999

er’s testimony was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law; and (3) the
state court’s decision regarding Detective Ringer’s testimony
was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.
On appeal, Ocampo pursues the Confrontation Clause
claim alone.
II.
Ocampo’s petition was filed after the effective date of the
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (“AEDPA”), and his claims
were rejected by the state courts on the merits. So we may
grant relief only if the last reasoned state decision was
“ ‘based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light
of the evidence presented in [the] State court proceeding’ ” or
on a legal determination that was “ ‘contrary to, or involved
an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal
law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United
States.’ ” Kennedy v. Lockyer, 379 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir.
2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254).
To meet the “unreasonable determination” standard under
§ 2254(d)(2), the habeas court “must be convinced that an
appellate panel . . . could not reasonably conclude that the
finding is supported by the record . . . [or] that any appellate
court to whom the defect is pointed out would be unreasonable in holding that the state court’s fact-finding process was
adequate.” Taylor v. Maddox, 366 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir.
2004) (internal citations omitted). “[T]he state-court factfinding process is undermined where the state court has
before it, yet apparently ignores, evidence that supports petitioner’s claim.” Id. at 1001.
“Under the ‘unreasonable application’ clause, a federal
habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the
correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 17 of 37

8000

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts
of the prisoner’s case.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 413
(2000). The state court’s decision must be “more than incorrect or erroneous”; it “must be objectively unreasonable.”
Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 75 (2003). As the Supreme
Court recently emphasized in Harrington v. Richter, ___ U.S.
___, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011), “ ‘[E]valuating whether a rule
application was unreasonable requires considering the rule’s
specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts
have in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations.’ ”
Id. at 786 (quoting Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652,
664 (2004)) (alteration in original). “ ‘[I]t is not an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law for a state
court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been
squarely established by [the Supreme] Court.’ ” Id. (quoting
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. ___, ___, 129 S. Ct. 1411,
1413-14 (2009)) (alteration in original). “Under § 2254(d), a
habeas court must determine what arguments or theories supported or, as here, could have supported, the state court’s
decision; and then it must ask whether it is possible fairminded jurists could disagree that those arguments or theories
are inconsistent with the holding in a prior decision of [the
Supreme] Court.” Id.
A.
[1] The merits of Ocampo’s Confrontation Clause claim
are governed by Crawford,11 the Supreme Court’s landmark
11

It is possible to read the state appellate court’s decision as rejecting
Ocampo’s confrontation claim, at least as to Detective Ringer’s testimony,
on the basis of a state procedural rule. But the State has not raised a procedural default defense to the Confrontation Clause claim either in the district court or here, and, in its briefing to us, it terms the state court’s
Confrontation Clause ruling as one “on the merits.” The defense has therefore been waived. See Franklin v. Johnson, 290 F.3d 1223, 1230-31 (9th
Cir. 2002). Although we have discretion to consider procedural default sua
sponte, we do so only in extraordinary circumstances. Slovik v. Yates, 556
F.3d 747, 751-52 n.4 (9th Cir. 2009); Vang v. Nevada, 329 F.3d 1069,
1073 (9th Cir. 2003); Franklin, 290 F.3d at 1233. There are no extraordinary circumstances in this case warranting sua sponte consideration.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 18 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8001

decision construing the Sixth Amendment “right [of a criminal defendant] . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against
him.” Crawford held that the Clause forbids “admission of
testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial
unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had
had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” 541 U.S. at
53-54.
[2] The state appellate court correctly identified Crawford
as the controlling authority for Ocampo’s Confrontation
Clause claim. Our initial question, then is whether the state
appellate court unreasonably applied Crawford to the facts of
Ocampo’s case. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 413. In addressing
that question, we consider in turn three issues: first, whether
Vasquez’s statements to police were testimonial; second,
whether those statements were admitted against Ocampo at
trial; and third, whether the Confrontation Clause exception
recognized in Crawford applies, i.e., whether, although
Vasquez was unavailable to testify, Ocampo had had a prior
opportunity to cross-examine him.
1.
Under Crawford, the admission of Vasquez’s statements to
the two detectives is not a Confrontation Clause violation
unless those statements were testimonial. 541 U.S. at 53-54;
Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821 (2006).12 There is no
question that they were.
[3] Crawford explained that “[s]tatements taken by police
officers in the course of interrogations are . . . testimonial
under even a narrow standard.” 541 U.S. at 52. “Whatever
12

Davis was decided two months after the state appellate court’s decision in this case, but well before the Washington Supreme Court denied
review. Davis, in any event, simply elucidates Crawford; it is Crawford
that sets forth the governing clearly established Supreme Court precedent
with regard to the basic coverage of the Confrontation Clause.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 19 of 37

8002

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

else the term [‘testimonial’] covers, it applies at a minimum
to . . . police interrogations.” Id. at 68. On Ocampo’s appeal,
the state appellate court so acknowledged, stating that the definition of “testimonial . . . includes statements elicited in
response to structured police questioning during an investigation.” In Davis, the Supreme Court noted, similarly, that
“[t]he product of such interrogation, whether reduced to writing . . . or embedded in the memory (and perhaps notes) of
the interrogating officer, is testimonial.” 547 U.S. at 826.
Here, Vasquez’s statements were made to detectives questioning him as part of their investigation into the events surrounding Morales-Castro’s murder, and as such were undoubtedly
testimonial.
2.
[4] The state appellate court implied that Vasquez’s statements were not admitted against Ocampo at trial. Specifically,
the state court stated that Detective Webb “did not testify to
the substance of any statements Vasquez made,” and that
“Detective Ringer’s testimony only implied the outlines of
Vasquez’s statement.” We conclude that Ringer’s testimony
indisputably conveyed some of the critical substance of
Vasquez’s statements to the jury, in violation of the Confrontation Clause, even though his testimony was not detailed. We
also hold that the state appellate court’s factual understanding
regarding the limited nature of Webb’s testimony about
Vasquez was objectively unreasonable under AEDPA, and
that, reasonably understood, Webb’s testimony concerning
Vasquez violated the Confrontation Clause.
(i) We begin by considering the clearly established
Supreme Court law regarding the degree of detail in which an
out-of-court statement must be presented at trial to be covered
by the Confrontation Clause. Our conclusion is that before
Crawford, it was clearly established that testimony from
which one could determine the critical content of the out-ofcourt statement was sufficient to trigger Confrontation Clause

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 20 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8003

concerns, and that, far from undermining that standard, Crawford established principles with which that aspect of the preCrawford Confrontation Clause jurisprudence are fully consistent.
[5] Before Crawford, the Supreme Court treated out-ofcourt statements as statements triggering the protections of the
Confrontation Clause, even if the in-court testimony described
rather than quoted the out-of-court statements: In Idaho v.
Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990), the Court held that the trial
court had violated the defendant’s confrontation rights by
allowing a pediatrician to describe a child’s answers to his
questions about sexual abuse from “notes [that] were not
detailed.” Id. at 811; see id. at 825-27. Also, both the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rules cover “statements”
offered as proof of a fact at trial, Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51-52;
Fed R. Evid. 801(a) and (c), and both the constitutional confrontation assurance and the hearsay rules “protect similar
values . . . and stem from the same roots.” Ohio v. Roberts,
448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980) (quotations omitted), abrogated on
other grounds by Crawford, 541 U.S. 36. Before Crawford,
the Court routinely considered descriptions of out-of-court
statements, as well as questions or transcripts of them, as
“statements” for hearsay rule purposes. See, e.g., Moore v.
United States, 429 U.S. 20 (1976); Williamson v. United
States, 512 U.S. 594, 597 (1994). It was therefore clearly
established Supreme Court law before Crawford that in-court
descriptions of out-of-court statements, as well as verbatim
accounts, are “statements” and can violate the Confrontation
Clause, if the requisite requirements are otherwise met.
[6] Crawford altered Confrontation Clause law so that it
generally covers “testimonial” out-of-court statements, 541
U.S. at 51-52, whether or not they “fall[ ] within a firmly
rooted hearsay exception.” Roberts, 448 U.S. at 66. But nothing in Crawford addressed, or undermined, the established
principle that in-court testimony could trigger Confrontation
Clause concerns by describing, but not quoting, an out-of-

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 21 of 37

8004

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

court statement that would otherwise come within the Confrontation Clause.
[7] To the contrary, it would be an unreasonable application of the core Confrontation Clause principle underlying
Crawford to allow police officers to testify to the substance
of an unavailable witness’s testimonial statements as long as
they do so descriptively rather than verbatim or in detail.
Crawford’s holding rests on the premise that “the use of ex
parte examinations as evidence against the accused” was “the
principal evil at which the Confrontation Clause was directed.” 541 U.S. at 50. In applying this principle in Davis, the
Court did “not think it [was] conceivable” that the Confrontation Clause could be interpreted to allow “a note-taking
policeman [to] recite the unsworn hearsay testimony of the
declarant.” 547 U.S. at 826 (emphasis omitted). In other
words, Crawford was concerned with ensuring that out-ofcourt testimonial statements, taken ex parte and without triallike protections, were not used as evidence before the jury if
the speaker could not be cross-examined. Permitting a police
officer to summarize or outline an out-of-court statement in
no way corrects for the affront to the purpose of the Clause,
as it was explained in Crawford. The Confrontation Clause
provides a procedural check on “[t]he involvement of government officers in the production of testimonial evidence.”
Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53. Where the government officers
have not only “produced” the evidence, but then condensed it
into a conclusory affirmation for purposes of presentation to
the jury, the difficulties of testing the veracity of the source
of the evidence are not lessened but exacerbated. With the
language actually used by the out-of-court witness obscured,
any clues to its truthfulness provided by that language — contradictions, hesitations, and other clues often used to test credibility — are lost, and instead, a veneer of objectivity
conveyed.
Labeling such digested testimony as a mere “outline” of,
rather than a description or summary of, the substance of out-

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 22 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8005

of-court statements cannot reasonably alter these conclusions
or toss the testimony outside the reach of the Confrontation
Clause as interpreted in Crawford.13 Whatever locution is
used, out-of-court statements admitted at trial are “statements” for the purpose of the Confrontation Clause both preand post-Crawford if, fairly read, they convey to the jury the
substance of an out-of-court, testimonial statement of a witness who does not testify at trial.
(ii) In both non-AEDPA cases14 and cases covered by
AEDPA, several other circuits have applied the principle that
13
Mason v. Yarborough, 447 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 2006) suggested that,
under Crawford, there is an open question as to whether testimony alluding to a non-testifying witness’s statements violates the Confrontation
Clause if the witness’s words are never admitted into evidence, indicating
that if a witness’s “words were never admitted into evidence, he could not
‘bear testimony’ against [the defendant].” Id. at 696. But Mason did not
decide this issue or engage in any substantive discussion of it. More
importantly, the testimony in Mason alluded to the codefendant’s statement without implicating Mason. “For all the jury knew, [the codefendant]
confessed to his own involvement in the shootings and was arrested.” Id.
It was opaque evidence of that kind that Mason had in mind. Here, as
explained in more detail below, Detectives Ringer and Webb testified
regarding statements by Vasquez that, as described by the detectives,
indisputably implicated Ocampo. Thus, the “bear testimony against” concern articulated in Mason has no application here.

Moreover, the recent Supreme Court decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527 (2009) undermines the reasoning in Mason.
Specifically, in Melendez-Diaz, the Supreme Court clarified that “[t]he
text of the [Sixth] Amendment contemplates two classes of witnesses —
those against the defendant and those in his favor. The prosecution must
produce the former; the defendant may call the latter. . . . [T]here is not
a third category of witnesses, helpful to the prosecution, but somehow
immune from confrontation,” noting that any other view “would be contrary to longstanding case law.” Id. at 2534 (footnote omitted) (emphasis
in original).
14
We discuss several non-AEDPA cases because they express a general,
consistent understanding of the reach of the Confrontation Clause, and so
are at least informative as to whether a contrary view would be unreasonable.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 23 of 37

8006

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

testimony communicating the substance of absent witnesses’
statements can run afoul of the Confrontation Clause even
when there is no verbatim account of the out-of-court statement. The First Circuit recently held that “the right to crossexamine an out-of-court accuser applies with full force” even
in circumstances where “the actual statements” of the out-ofcourt declarant were not admitted. United States v. Meises,
___ F.3d ___, 2011 WL 1817855 at *12 (1st Cir. May 13,
2011). Relying on Crawford, the First Circuit concluded that
“[i]t makes no difference that the government took care not to
introduce [the out-of-court declarant’s] ‘actual statements’ ”
because “[t]he opportunity to cross-examine the declarant ‘to
tease out the truth,’ Crawford, 541 U.S. at 67, is no less vital
when a witness indirectly, but still unmistakeably, recounts a
[declarant’s] out-of-court accusation.” Id. The First Circuit
went on to reason that “if what the jury hears is, in substance,
an untested, out-of-court accusation against the defendant,
particularly if the inculpatory statement is made to law
enforcement authorities, the defendant’s Sixth Amendment
right to confront the declarant is triggered.” Id.
Other circuits agree. The Seventh Circuit, relying on Crawford, has recognized that allowing police to refer to the substance of witnesses’ statements as they “narrate the course of
their investigations, and thus spread before juries damning
information that is not subject to cross-examination, would go
far toward abrogating the defendant’s rights under the sixth
amendment.” United States v. Silva, 380 F.3d 1018, 1020 (7th
Cir. 2004). Similarly, in Favre v. Henderson, 464 F.2d 359
(5th Cir. 1972), the Fifth Circuit held that the defendant’s
confrontation rights, as defined by the Supreme Court in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 (1970), were violated because “testimony was admitted which led to the clear and logical
inference that out-of-court declarants believed and said that
[the defendant] was guilty of the crime charged.” Favre, 464
F.2d at 364. “Although the officer never testified to the exact
statements made to him by the informers, the nature of the
statements . . . was readily inferred.” Id. at 362.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 24 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8007

The Fifth Circuit has applied the same logic in at least one
post-AEDPA habeas case: In Taylor v. Cain, 545 F.3d 327
(5th Cir. 2008), the Fifth Circuit relied on Ohio v. Roberts on
the salient point in granting habeas in a case with facts similar
to those here. The court held that “[p]olice officers cannot,
through their trial testimony, refer to the substance of statements given to them by nontestifying witnesses in the course
of their investigation, when those statements inculpate the
defendant.” Id. at 335.
In another post-AEDPA habeas case, the Second Circuit
clarified that “[t]he relevant question is whether the way the
prosecutor solicited the testimony made the source and content of the conversation clear.” Ryan v. Miller, 303 F.3d 231,
250 (2d Cir. 2002). Ryan held that “[i]f the substance of the
prohibited testimony is evident even though it was not introduced in the prohibited form, the testimony is still inadmissible” under the Supreme Court’s Confrontation Clause
precedents. Id. at 249.15
Finally, the Eleventh Circuit, relying on Dutton, also held,
pre-AEDPA, that the Confrontation Clause is violated when
police testify to the substance of inculpatory out-of-court
statements. Hutchins v. Wainwright, 715 F.2d 512, 516 (11th
Cir. 1983); see id. (“Although the officers’ testimony may not
have quoted the exact words of the informant, the nature and
substance of the statements suggesting there was an eyewitness and what he knew was readily inferred”).
15

In an earlier, non-AEDPA case, the Second Circuit relied on the principle established in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), in holding that testimony containing implicit accusations violates the
Confrontation Clause even if the testimony does not “reveal[ ] in detail”
the content of the out-of-court statements at issue. Mason v. Scully, 16
F.3d 38, 43 (2d Cir. 1994). See also United States v. Reyes, 18 F.3d 65,
69 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[A]lthough the jury was not told exactly what words
[the co-defendants] had spoken, [the witnesses] testimony clearly conveyed the substance of what they had said”).

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 25 of 37

8008

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

[8] In sum, it is both clearly established Supreme Court
law unaffected by Crawford and an unreasonable application
of the rule adopted in Crawford to regard summarizing — or
“outlining” — the substance of out-of-court testimonial statements, directly or in a way from which “the nature of the
statement . . . [can be] readily inferred,” see Favre, 464 F.2d
at 362, as incapable of violating the Confrontation Clause.
Instead, if the substance of an out-of-court testimonial statement is likely to be inferred by the jury, the statement is subject to the Confrontation Clause.
[9] (iii) Applying this principle, Detective Ringer’s and
Detective Webb’s testimony concerning Vasquez’s statements
constituted the introduction of testimonial statements against
Ocampo for Confrontation Clause purposes.
Detective Ringer testified about how the police identified
the suspects in the shooting, which was in part by ruling out
others, who had previously been identified by witnesses, as
not having been involved. As to that process of identifying the
suspects, Detective Ringer stated that “eventually Jose Hernandez was arrested, he gave a statement. Later we contacted
Baldemar Vela, and he gave a statement that verified what
Jose Hernandez said. And still later, Mesial Vasquez was
interviewed and he also verified the other two.” He repeated
later that a “statement by Mesial Vasquez” was one reason he
“knew” that some of the people identified as having been
involved were not involved. The only fair reading of this testimony is that Vasquez stated that certain people were not suspects, but did not so state concerning Ocampo. Vasquez’s outof-court statement exonerating others who had been identified
from photographs as involved in the crime, but not Ocampo,
was inculpatory as to Ocampo, as it indicated that Vasquez,
who was present, did not exonerate Ocampo. Further, as there
were only four people in the car, and Ocampo’s defense was
that he was not one of them, eliminating some suspects from
among those identified by witnesses was itself of importance,
as it made it less likely that someone other than Ocampo was

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 26 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8009

one of the four people in the car. As the prosecutor later said
in closing, central to the case was “whether the defendant was
there or whether it was someone else there.”
Later, Detective Ringer testified that he had corroborated
Hernandez’s participation in the shooting in part through
statements made by Vasquez, and went on to say that he had
also corroborated Ocampo’s presence at the scene, although
he did not give any details about how he had corroborated
Ocampo’s presence. Immediately after Ringer testified, Jose
Hernandez testified that Ocampo was the shooter.16 Corroborating Hernandez’s participation thus helped to inculpate
Ocampo, as it was a link in the chain of evidence that gave
credence to Hernandez’s identification of Ocampo as the
shooter. If the jury had had only Hernandez’s word that he
himself was involved in the crime, then it could have had a
harder time believing his overall story about how the crime
occurred.
In sum, Ringer’s testimony did not provide any specific
details about Vasquez’s out-of-court statements. But it did
convey some critical substance about those statements: That
certain others were not among those present at the scene, that
Ocampo was not among those identified as not present, and
that Hernandez was a participant in the shooting. All together,
Ringer’s testimony indicated that Vasquez had confirmed
Ocampo’s presence at the scene of the crime. The State recognized as much in its brief: “Detective Ringer’s testimony did
not relate any of the substance of Vasquez’s statements other
than Ocampo’s presence there.” (Emphasis added). And that
presence was the key issue in the case, as Ocampo’s defense
was that he was not there.
More specific than Ringer’s testimony about Vasquez’s
statements to the police was Detective Webb’s testimony
16

Hernandez also testified that his testimony at trial was consistent with
his initial post-arrest statements to police.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 27 of 37

8010

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

about those statements. While Ringer had not personally spoken with Vasquez, Detective Webb had. He testified that
Vasquez talked to him about the murder and was “reluctantly
helpful.” Webb then went on to testify that he came up with
a list of clothing items to search for at Ocampo’s residence
based in part on information solicited from Vasquez “as to
what everybody might have been wearing that night.” Finally,
and most importantly, Webb testified that he “didn’t go back
later and show photo montages with Santana Ocampo to witnesses” because “a coconspirator . . . had confessed his
involvement and two additional witnesses besides that person
[had] implicated the defendant.” (Emphasis added). It was
clear from the context of the prosecutor’s previous question,
to which an objection had been sustained, and from the other
evidence at the trial that the “two additional witnesses” had to
be Vela and Vasquez.
The Washington Court of Appeals’ determination that
Detective Webb “did not testify to the substance of any statements Vasquez made,” was thus either legally or factually
unreasonable. To the extent that the Court of Appeals meant
that the testimony was not to the “substance” of Vasquez’s
statements because it was in summary form and not in detail,
the conclusion was legally unreasonable given clearly established Supreme Court law, for the reasons already surveyed.
To the extent the Court of Appeals ignored that the “two additional witnesses,” in context, necessarily included Vasquez, or
that testimony that Vasquez’s statement “implicated” Ocampo
contains critically important substance, its conclusion was
“based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light
of the evidence presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2); see also
Taylor, 366 F.3d at 1001 (“the state-court fact-finding process
is undermined where the state court has before it, yet apparently ignores, evidence that supports petitioner’s claim”).
Were there any doubt as to what a jury would have understood about Vasquez’s out-of-court statements from the two
detectives’ testimony — which we do not think there is — it

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 28 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8011

is dispelled by the prosecutor’s remarks at closing. Those
remarks highlighted the testimony about Vasquez’s statements as critically important, stressing that “the core of [Hernandez’s] statements” — which were that Ocampo was
present and was the shooter — “were corroborated by Mesial
Vasquez . . . .” As in Hutchins, “the prosecutor’s reliance on
the hearsay testimony in closing argument was such that a
reasonable juror could have concluded only that [Vasquez]
identified [Ocampo] as the perpetrator.” 715 F.2d at 516.
[10] In sum, the critical substance of Vasquez’s testimonial
statements were admitted against Ocampo at trial, albeit not
in verbatim form, through Detective Ringer’s and Detective
Webb’s testimony. The prosecutor’s closing argument then
framed for the jury precisely what they were meant to take
from the detective’s testimony about Vasquez: that he had
confirmed both Ocampo’s presence that night and that
Ocampo was the shooter. The state appellate court’s conclusion to the contrary, premised on its characterization of the
detectives’ testimony as only “outline” or lacking “substance,” was an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent.
3.
Under Crawford, testimonial statements may be admitted if
the declarant is unavailable to testify and the defendant had a
prior opportunity to cross-examine him. 541 U.S. at 53-54.
This exception has no application here, whether or not
Vasquez was actually unavailable, as Ocampo never had an
opportunity to cross-examine Vasquez.
Crawford held that “[w]here testimonial evidence is at
issue . . . the Sixth Amendment demands what the common
law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for crossexamination.” Id. at 68 (emphasis added). This conclusion
rested on the premise that the Confrontation Clause “commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 29 of 37

8012

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of
cross-examination.” Id. at 61. As a result, “the only indicium
of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is the
one the Constitution actually prescribes: confrontation.” Id. at
69.
[11] Although the Washington Court of Appeals suggested
otherwise, this confrontation requirement was not satisfied by
the fact that “Ocampo was able to cross-examine the detective[s] on whether any statements were made.” Crawford was
emphatic that questioning an in-court witness who relates the
statements of an absent witness is no substitute for the direct
confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, noting,
for example, that Sir Walter Raleigh was denied his right to
confront his accuser despite being “perfectly free to confront
those who read [the accuser’s] confession in court.” Id. at 51;
see also Davis, 547 U.S. at 826 (having a police officer stand
in for an absent witness is not “conceivable”). Without doubt,
the proposition that the opportunity to cross-examine an incourt witness about an out-of-court testimonial statement by
an absent witness is sufficient is contrary to clearly established Supreme Court law.
[12] The state court admitted the critical substance of
Vasquez’s testimonial statements against Ocampo, and,
because Vasquez did not testify, Ocampo had no opportunity
to cross-examine Vasquez. Ocampo’s federal constitutional
right to confront the witnesses against him was therefore violated. The state appellate court’s decision holding otherwise
was an objectively unreasonable application of Crawford.
B.
[13] We now turn to whether the Confrontation Clause
violation at Ocampo’s trial requires the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus. A Confrontation Clause violation is harmless,
and so does not justify habeas relief, unless it “ ‘had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 30 of 37

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

8013

verdict.’ ”17 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 623 (1993)
(quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 776
(1946)). “[W]hen a habeas court is in grave doubt as to the
harmlessness of an error that affects substantial rights, it
should grant relief.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 445
(1995).
In general, the inquiry into whether the constitutionally
erroneous introduction of a piece of evidence had a substantial and injurious effect is guided by several factors: “the
importance of the testimony, whether the testimony was
cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating
or contradicting the testimony, the extent of crossexamination permitted, and the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” Whelchel v. Washington, 232 F.3d 1197, 1206
(9th Cir. 2000) (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S.
673, 684 (1986)); accord Slovik v. Yates, 556 F.3d 747, 755
(9th Cir. 2009). As to the weight given to corroborating testimony in Confrontation Clause cases, we have explained that:
While corroborative evidence may, as a general rule,
make the wrongful introduction of other evidence
harmless, this concept has no application where: (1)
there was a reason for the jury to doubt the only eyewitness testimony; (2) the third party testimony was
not exceptionally strong; and (3) the physical evidence connecting the accused to the crime was limited and explained by [the defendant’s theory of the
case].
17

The Washington Court of Appeals did not make a harmlessness determination under Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967). Even if it had,
our analysis would still be governed by the Brecht standard. See Pulido
v. Chrones, 629 F.3d 1007, 1012 (9th Cir. 2010) (holding that after Fry
v. Pliler, 551 U.S. 112 (2007), “we need not conduct an analysis under
AEDPA of whether the state court’s harmlessness determination . . . was
contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
law,” but should instead apply the Brecht standard “without regard for the
state court’s harmlessness determination”).

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 31 of 37

8014

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

Whelchel, 232 F.3d at 1208.
Applying these factors, we conclude that the admission of
Detective Ringer’s and Detective Webb’s testimony regarding
Vasquez’s statements, in combination with the prosecutor’s
closing remarks, had “a substantial and injurious effect or
influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” See Brecht, 507
U.S. at 623.
First, the importance of Vasquez’s statements was underscored by the prosecutor’s several references to Vasquez’s
out-of-court statements in closing argument.18 Moreover, as
discussed above, the prosecutor framed the detectives’ testimony about Vasquez’s statements in such a way that the jury
was encouraged to conclude, as it probably would have anyway, that Vasquez had identified Ocampo as the shooter. See
Hutchins, 715 F.2d at 516.
For example, the prosecutor accurately identified a central
issue in the case as being “whether the defendant was there
or whether it was someone else there.” She then minimized
the importance of Vela’s equivocations on the stand about
whether he could identify Ocampo as one of the people in the
car by reminding the jury that Hernandez’s testimony was
also “all confirmed by Mesial Vasquez.” Similarly, the prosecutor urged the jury to ignore the fact that Hernandez had
“gone back and forth to some extent about the facts,” because
“the core of his statements, were corroborated by Mesial
Vasquez.” In her rebuttal the prosecutor told the jury they
should be “convinced beyond a reasonable doubt” that Jose
Hernandez was a participant in the events as he reported,
18

Our purpose in recounting the prosecutor’s use of Vasquez’s statements in closing argument is not to treat that argument as itself constitutional error. Instead, the argument serves both to confirm the importance
of the testimony as to Vasquez’s statements, given the evidence as a
whole, as well as to confirm how the jury most likely understood those
statements.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 32 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8015

“[b]ecause . . . this . . . fourth guy in the car [Vasquez] backs
him up.”
Second, without Vasquez’s statements corroborating Hernandez’s version of events, the evidence implicating Ocampo
as the shooter could well have been disbelieved. The other
two people present in the car, Hernandez and Vela, gave testimony that was internally contradictory, inconsistent with each
other’s, and indeterminate.
To begin, there were structural reasons “for the jury to
doubt” the testimony of Hernandez, the only eyewitness to the
shooting. See Whelchel, 232 F.3d at 1208. Hernandez was an
accomplice. The Supreme Court has long recognized that
accomplices are questionable witnesses. See Crawford v.
United States, 212 U.S. 183, 204 (1909) (admonishing that
“the evidence of such a witness ought to be received with suspicion, and with the very greatest care and caution, and ought
not to be passed upon by the jury under the same rules governing other and apparently credible witnesses”). The jury
instructions in this case included a standard accomplice
instruction, which the prosecution discussed in closing argument, warning the jury that Hernandez’s statements should be
viewed with “great caution.” Moreover, Hernandez’s plea
agreement was predicated on testifying against Ocampo, so he
would have been risking additional punishment had he not
testified that Ocampo was responsible for the murder. Cf.
Whelchel, 232 F.3d at 1207-08. After acknowledging these
weaknesses inherent in Hernandez’s testimony, the prosecutor
once more stressed that “there is corroborating evidence that
Jose Hernandez was being truthful.”
Another reason “for the jury to doubt” Hernandez’s testimony was that it was inconsistent in several respects with his
pre-trial version of events. On cross-examination, the defense
impeached Hernandez with several inconsistencies between
his testimony and his taped post-arrest statement to the police,
including inconsistencies about how he got to the Quinceañ-

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 33 of 37

8016

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

era; whether Vela bought beer for him before the shooting;
whether he saw the gun after the shooting; how long he stayed
at the Quinceañera after the shooting; who he left with; and
where he went. Hernandez had no real explanation for these
inconsistencies, and instead insisted, implausibly, that the
transcript of his taped statement was incorrect.
Yet another reason the jury could well have disbelieved
Hernandez’s basic story inculpating Ocampo was that other
witnesses contradicted Hernandez’s testimony as to central
facts. For example, although Hernandez testified that only he
and Ocampo fled from Morales-Castro’s car to Vela’s van
after the shooting, the other witnesses at the scene uniformly
testified that they saw a group of three individuals fleeing.
Hernandez maintained that Morales-Castro acted drunk and
smelled of alcohol when entering his car, but there were no
drugs or alcohol in Morales-Castro’s system when he was
admitted to the hospital. And Hernandez’s story was that after
the shooting, he was in the back seat of the van with Vasquez,
while Ocampo sat up front with Vela. Vela, in contrast, testified that Hernandez was in the front seat, and that someone
in the back of the van confessed to being the shooter. If Hernandez was correct about where Ocampo sat then, according
to Vela, Ocampo was not the shooter.
There was yet one more, exceedingly strong reason for disbelieving Hernandez’s account of the crime: Hernandez twice
confessed to juvenile detention officers that he, not Ocampo,
was the shooter that night. And Hernandez’s ex-girlfriend also
testified that Hernandez had told her that he had shot MoralesCastro.19 Absent a strong reason to disbelieve Ocampo’s alibi,
a reasonable jury could have chosen to believe Hernandez’s
confession and to conclude that he had made up the story that
Ocampo was both present and the shooter so as to obtain a
favorable plea agreement.
19

For various reasons, including her age and drug use, Hernandez’s exgirlfriend may not have been the most credible witness.

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 34 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8017

Nor was the third-party testimony the prosecution offered
“exceptionally strong.” Cf. Whelchel, 232 F.3d at 1208. The
only prosecution witness other than Hernandez who ever
claimed to see Ocampo at the scene was Vela. But Vela testified on cross-examination that he did not actually know who
the passengers in his van were, and only identified Ocampo
in his interview with police as a passenger after he was told
that Ocampo had already confessed to being in the van. Also,
Detective Ringer admitted that the use of a single, color
Polaroid of Ocampo in seeking Vela’s identification was a
potentially suggestive method for obtaining a reliable identification.
Furthermore, the conflict between the testimony of Vela
and Hernandez about seating positions is crucial: While Vela
represented that Hernandez was in the front passenger seat as
they left the scene, Hernandez’s story was that he, Hernandez,
was sitting in the back. Thus, either Hernandez’s statement is
true and there is a 50% chance Hernandez was the source of
the inculpatory statement, testified to by Vela — “I was tripping, so I had to shoot him,” — or Vela’s statement is true —
that is, Herandez was sitting in the front — and there is yet
another factual inaccuracy undermining Hernandez’s testimony.
Finally, the physical evidence “was limited and explained
by” Ocampo’s theory of the case. Cf. Whelchel, 232 F.3d at
1208. In closing argument, the prosecution offered clothing
found in Ocampo’s room and the ballistics of MoralesCastro’s gunshot wound as “physical evidence,” arguing that
both were consistent with Hernandez’s account. But neither
piece of evidence conforms, or even corroborates, that
Ocampo was the shooter. Even if the clothes found in Ocampo’s room were the very ones that Hernandez saw him wearing that night, that only proves that Hernandez saw him at
some point that evening. And the consistency between
Morales-Castro’s wound and Hernandez’s description of the
incident only strengthens Hernandez’s claim that he witnessed

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 35 of 37

8018

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

the shooting. It says nothing about whether Ocampo was the
one he saw pull the trigger, or whether, instead, it was Hernandez himself (as he had told three people at three different
times), or a third person (for example, Vasquez or Solis).
[14] In sum, the overall case against Ocampo was as far as
can be from “overwhelming.” Cf. Moses v. Payne, 555 F.3d
742, 755 (9th Cir. 2009) (constitutional error does not warrant
reversal when there is “overwhelming evidence” of the defendant’s guilt). The “physical” evidence the State offered only
had significance in showing that several ancillary aspects of
Hernandez’s testimony (from where the shot was fired and
what clothes Ocampo owned) were not demonstrably false.
The prosecutor acknowledged that the issue in the trial was
whether it was Ocampo or someone else who was with Hernandez when Morales-Castro was shot. And the only evidence
of witnesses who testified at trial linking Ocampo to the scene
came from Hernandez and Vela. The jury had several,
weighty reasons to disbelieve Hernandez, and Vela was far
from sure of his identification of Ocampo and did not directly
link Ocampo to the shooting.
[15] Given these considerable weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, the testimony regarding Vasquez’s statements,
emphasized by the prosecutor’s references to Vasquez at closing, cut to the heart of Ocampo’s defense, which was that he
had never left the Quinceañera. Vasquez’s out-of-court testimonial statements, as testified to by Detectives Ringer and
Webb, indicated that Ocampo was present at the scene of the
crime, and, indeed was “implicated” in the shooting. The
prosecution — like the trial judge — was obviously aware
that Crawford restricted its ability to rely on Vasquez’s outof-court statements, yet, as the repeated references to that
statement in the prosecution’s closing comments to the jury
confirm, without the core of those statements — that Ocampo
was present at the scene of the crime and involved in it —
there might well have been no conviction. The prosecution
therefore tried to walk a fine — indeed, non-existent — line

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 36 of 37

OCAMPO v. VAIL

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

8019

between conveying to the jury that Vasquez confirmed Hernandez’s story and avoiding a Confrontation Clause violation.
It succeeded as to the first but, for that very reason, failed
under clearly established Supreme Court law as to the second.
We, of course, cannot know whether, had Vasquez testified, he would have confirmed Hernandez’s story regarding
Ocampo’s role in the crime or whether he would have been
exposed as a possible liar through effective crossexamination. For present purposes, however, what matters is
that he did not appear at trial; his statements thus should not
have been admitted at all, whether in “outline,” summary,
unavoidable inference, or verbatim; and, given the weakness
of the two other key trial witnesses and of the physical evidence, we necessarily have “grave doubt” that without Detectives Ringer and Webb’s accounts of what Vasquez said, the
result would have been a conviction of Ocampo. See O’Neal,
513 U.S. at 435. When a court is thus “in virtual equipoise as
to the harmlessness of the error under the Brecht standard, the
court should treat the error as if it affected the verdict.” Fry,
551 U.S. at 121 n.3 (citations and quotations omitted). We
conclude that the erroneous admission of the substance of
Vasquez’s statements to police, given particular force for the
jury by the prosecutor’s repeated references to those statements in closing, was prejudicial under the Brecht standard.
III.
[16] The Washington Court of Appeals unreasonably
applied clearly established Supreme Court Confrontation
Clause jurisprudence to the facts of this case. The error was
prejudicial because the testimony concerning Vasquez’s outof-court statements to the two detectives bolstered the state’s
weak case against Ocampo, and flatly contradicted Ocampo’s
alibi defense. We reverse the district court’s denial of Ocampo’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand with
instructions to grant a writ of habeas corpus unless the State

Case: 08-35586 06/09/2011 Page: 37 of 37

8020

ID: 7779447 DktEntry: 35-1

OCAMPO v. VAIL

elects to retry Ocampo within a reasonable amount of time to
be determined by the district court.
REVERSED and REMANDED.