Opinion ID: 218504
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vasquez

Text: 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 As we investigated further, we found that one of the photographs, Jose Hernandez's identification 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. 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]: I am going to object, request a side-bar. . . . (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. [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 Vasquez's interview: Q Did Mr. Vasquez talk to you about the murder that occurred on August 10th? A He did. 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 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: I am going to sustain to the question. [PROSECUTOR]: I was going to ask if his statement was consistent with other statements. [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I THE COURT: 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: 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]: Objection. Mischaracterizes the evidence. THE COURT: Sustain to the form of the question. 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 confirmed 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 Marcos [9] , 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, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), as the 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, 114 Wash.2d 613, 790 P.2d 610, 635 (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, 67 Wash.App. 339, 835 P.2d 251, 254 (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 cross-examine 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, 132 Wash.2d 529, 940 P.2d 546, 564-65 (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 Ringer'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.