## Facts

- Viivi Piirisild was killed in an attack involving a hatchet and a knife; the evidence in both trials showed Peter Sakarias and Tauno Waidla participated in the fatal assault.
- Sakarias and Waidla were tried separately and each was convicted of first-degree murder with special circumstances and sentenced to death.
- The same prosecutor tried both cases and argued in each trial that the defendant then on trial inflicted a distinctive series of three hatchet blows to the victim’s head.
- The three-blow sequence was treated as uniquely culpable conduct and as an act that could have been committed by only one person.
- After their convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal, both defendants filed habeas corpus petitions in the California Supreme Court.
- The petitions alleged the prosecutor intentionally presented inconsistent and irreconcilable factual theories across the two trials by attributing the same unique conduct to each defendant.
- The court issued orders to show cause, consolidated the matters, and appointed a referee to take evidence and make findings regarding the alleged prosecutorial inconsistency and related issues.
- In Waidla’s petition, the court also examined whether claims under Miranda v. Arizona are cognizable on state habeas corpus.
- Following the referee’s report and briefing, the court decided whether due process was violated, whether any violation was prejudicial, and what remedy (if any) was required.

## Issues

1. Whether due process is violated when the same prosecutor intentionally advances inconsistent and irreconcilable factual theories in separate trials of codefendants by attributing uniquely culpable acts to each defendant in turn.
2. Whether any due process violation from inconsistent theories was material and prejudicial to the guilt or penalty determinations, and what relief is appropriate.
3. Whether Miranda-based claims are cognizable on state habeas corpus and, if so, whether procedural limits bar relief.

## Decision

- The court held that Sakarias’s due process rights were violated because the prosecutor intentionally and without good faith justification argued inconsistent and irreconcilable factual theories in the two trials, attributing to each defendant in turn acts that only one person could have committed.
- The court granted Sakarias partial habeas relief, vacating the judgment insofar as it imposed a sentence of death while leaving the conviction and special-circumstance findings intact.
- The court denied comparable relief to Waidla, concluding the inconsistency did not warrant relief under the record-specific materiality and prejudice analysis applicable to his case.
- The court concluded that Miranda claims are, in principle, cognizable on habeas corpus but are constrained by procedural doctrines limiting relitigation and requiring timely presentation; Waidla’s Miranda claims did not justify habeas relief.

## Legal Principles

- Due process is violated when the state, through the same prosecutor, intentionally and without good faith justification advances inconsistent and irreconcilable factual theories in separate trials in a manner that assigns uniquely culpable conduct to each defendant in turn when only one could have committed it.
- The constitutional inquiry distinguishes the existence of misconduct from prejudice; relief depends on whether the inconsistent theory was material to the outcome, including the penalty verdict in a capital case.
- In capital sentencing, misrepresentation or distortion of relative culpability among participants may be material because it can affect the jury’s assessment of aggravation and moral blameworthiness.
- A proven due process violation from inconsistent theories does not automatically require identical relief for codefendants; courts must evaluate materiality and prejudice based on each trial record.
- On state habeas corpus, Miranda-based claims may be raised, but claims previously litigated, or that could have been raised earlier, are generally barred absent recognized exceptions; failure to satisfy those limits supports denial of relief.

## Conclusion

The court found a due process violation where the prosecutor deliberately used mutually exclusive theories across separate capital trials to attribute a single set of uniquely culpable acts to each defendant, but granted relief only to Sakarias because the inconsistency was material to his penalty verdict; his death sentence was vacated while Waidla’s conviction and death sentence were left undisturbed, and Waidla’s Miranda claims were denied under habeas procedural limits and the merits record.


In re Sakarias, 35 Cal. 4th 140, 106 P.3d 931 (Cal. 2005)