Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

In Re Sakarias

California Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 2005No. S082299, S102401Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

BAXTER, J.,

Concurring and Dissenting.—I concur in the judgment except insofar as it orders vacation of petitioner Sakarias’s death judgment. As to Sakarias, I respectfully dissent.

Sakarias conspired with petitioner Waidla to rob and kill Avo and Yiivi Piirisild, their former benefactors. They invaded the Piirisilds’ home, lay in wait, and ambushed and murdered Yiivi. During a prolonged and horrific assault, numerous blows and wounds were inflicted with a knife and a hatchet. Sakarias admitted he used both weapons on the victim. As planned, the killers carried away property from the Piirisild…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Napue v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
  3. Calderon v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  4. United States v. Bobby Ray McCaskey A/K/A Snake and Lionel Legard A/K/A MaxCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1993
  5. Joseph Bennard Nichols v. Wayne Scott, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1995

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API