Zumot murder-conviction appeal rejected


Bulos "Paul" Zumot, the Palo Alto man convicted of strangling his girlfriend and setting fire to their Addison Avenue cottage in 2009, lost an appeal to overturn his conviction in the California Court of Appeals in San Jose on Thursday, Dec. 12.

Zumot, 39, was sentenced to 33 years to life in prison for first-degree murder and arson after being convicted in February 2011 of killing Jennifer Schipsi, 29. His attorney, Cliff Gardner, argued before three justices on Dec. 5 that Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge David Cena violated the law by allowing prosecutors to use testimony from the victim as evidence in the form of text-message and phone records during the trial.

The court also erred by admitting evidence of prior acts of domestic violence and instructing the jury that it could use that evidence to infer Zumot's guilt, Gardner told the justices at a Dec. 5 hearing. He also argued that Cena gave the jury "one-sided and unbalanced instructions" that favored the prosecution.

But the justices did not find any errors in Cena's hearing of the case. The lower court had not violated Zumot's Sixth Amendment right to "confrontation," which prohibits "hearsay" testimony in which the person making accusations can't be cross-examined by the defense.

Zumot also failed to request any clarification of the jury instructions. There was no "reasonable likelihood that the jury misconstrued or misapplied" the instructions, wrote Justices Franklin Elia, Miguel Marquez and Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian.

Prosecutors used text messages and cell-phone records to show the couple's turbulent relationship. The records and witness testimony indicated that Zumot and Schipsi had argued the morning of Oct. 15, 2009. In her text messages to Zumot, she had threatened to go to the police and to sue him if he did not repay her more than $11,000 she claimed that he owed.

That evening, a fire broke out at their rental home at 969 Addison Ave., and Schipsi's partially charred body was found on the bed inside. Arson investigators determined the fire had been caused by an accelerant, indicating the fire had been started purposefully.

The Santa Clara County Coroner determined later that Schipsi had been strangled before the fire; the bones and cartilage in her throat were fractured and there was soft-tissue injury to the back of her throat.

Zumot's appeal argued that prosecutors had relied on an exemption to the confrontation rule. The exemption is typically reserved for witnesses in gang-related trials who are prevented by the defendant from presenting their testimony. A defendant who causes a witness to be absent through wrongdoing forfeits the constitutional right to confrontation, under the doctrine.

The court mistakenly allowed Schipsi's statements to be admitted under this "forfeiture-by-wrongdoing" exemption, the defense argued. Under common law, the exemption applied only to the unavailable witness who had made statements or given testimony at a prior proceeding, Gardner told the justices at the Dec. 5 hearing.

Schipsi had not testified or made statements against Zumot at any prior proceeding. Zumot therefore had no opportunity to confront the evidence, and admission of the evidence violated his constitutional right to confrontation, Gardner said.

But the justices ruled the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" doctrine does apply when the defendant's wrongful act is intended to stop the victim from reporting the abuse to the authorities.

"There is no requirement that there be a formal ongoing legal proceeding at the time of the defendant's wrongful acts," the justices wrote.

A 2008 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Giles v. California, found that a forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine might apply to a domestic-violence case. Domestic violence is often used to dissuade a victim from obtaining outside help, including preventing testimony to police officers or cooperation with criminal prosecutions, the appeals court wrote.

An abusive relationship culminating in murder might support that the crime intended to isolate the victim and stop her from reporting the abuse to authorities or cooperating with a criminal prosecution, and that makes the victim's prior statements admissible under the forfeiture doctrine.

"Earlier abuse or threats of abuse, intended to dissuade the victim from resorting to outside help would be highly relevant to this inquiry, as would evidence of ongoing criminal proceedings at which the victim would have been expected to testify," the Supreme Court noted.

The appeals court also agreed with a prior 2009 appellate-court decision, the People v. Banos. In that case, prosecutors introduced out-of-court statements the victim had made to police during prior domestic-violence investigations. The court ruled the forfeiture doctrine is applicable not only when the defendant intends to prevent a witness from testifying in court, but also when the defendant's actions were designed to dissuade the witness from cooperating with the police or other law-enforcement authorities.

The Zumot justices agreed that Schipsi's statements were likewise admissible. Prosecutors showed he had killed her to keep her from being available as a witness. An ongoing legal proceeding was not necessary.

The night before her murder, Schipsi sent Zumot numerous text messages threatening to go to the police regarding financial issues and his alleged unauthorized use of her credit card. On the day she died, she sent Zumot a text message saying she would "file charges" against him.

Zumot had also already been convicted of harassing Schipsi and was on probation for the offense at the time of her killing. He was attending a required domestic-violence class on the afternoon of the murder.

The defense also argued the trial court should have held a hearing prior to sentencing Zumot. He claimed he was receiving ineffective counsel and that it had not ruled on his motion for a new trial or allowed him to appoint a new attorney.

The appeals court justices agreed with the lower court, however, that Zumot had eight months since his verdict and one month since his claim of firing superstar attorney Mark Geragos to bring in new counsel and file a motion for a new trial.

Although Zumot claimed to have fired the Geragos firm the month prior to his sentencing, this was not reflected in the court's minutes when it granted him a two-week continuance prior to his Oct. 28, 2011, sentencing.

Zumot was responsible for his attorney's unpreparedness at the sentencing hearing; although Geragos' firm had prepared motions, he had instructed the firm "not to file these documents," the court found.

Zumot's refusal to cooperate with his attorneys cannot be the basis for a claim of ineffective counsel, they ruled.

The court did sign a separate order for a writ of Habeas Corpus on Dec. 12, which was returned to the Santa Clara County Superior Court for a hearing.


2 people like this
Posted by Justice
a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2013 at 11:15 am

Good - made my day! He is right where he should be!

2 people like this
Posted by anonymous
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 13, 2013 at 11:18 am

I agree - justice has been done.

Like this comment
Posted by Joe
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 13, 2013 at 11:32 am

The made a TV crime show segment on this murder:

Sins & Secrets Palo Alto, CA:
Web Link

2 people like this
Posted by Agree
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Dec 13, 2013 at 12:40 pm

In a weakened state (which I'm not proud of), I once spent an hour reading a web page which the killer's family created which viciously attacked the victim. The killer's family are among the most evil people you can imagine. If ongoing legal fees can manage to suck the finances from the killer's family, justice will truly be served.

2 people like this
Posted by Marian
a resident of Downtown North
on Dec 13, 2013 at 1:12 pm

I had the unfortunate opportunity to meet Zumot in downtown Palo Alto before his crime. Among many things that the Sins & Secret gets wrong, is that it states Zumot as being handsome and his business as being successful. What a sensationalist piece of fiction. Zumot was creepy.

2 people like this
Posted by oc reader
a resident of another community
on Dec 13, 2013 at 1:31 pm

This guy is right where he should be... and hopefully for a very long time!

Like this comment
Posted by Paly Alum
a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Dec 13, 2013 at 1:34 pm

Joe, thanks for the link! Fun to watch the media's interpretation of Palo Alto.

Like this comment
Posted by Creeped out
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Dec 13, 2013 at 2:00 pm

Can't imagine how this creep managed to seduce this girl.....wonders never cease. he was unattractive and creepy.

The media sure got a LOT of facts incorrect, like calling Dish Dash an upscale restaurant, when actually it is a delivery service for restaurants!

Hope this guy got the death penalty.....that is what he gave his girlfriend.

Like this comment
Posted by Yougotwhatyoudeserved
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Dec 13, 2013 at 8:41 pm

[Post removed.]

Like this comment
Posted by Gethin
a resident of Midtown
on Dec 13, 2013 at 9:47 pm

Gethin is a registered user.

Its good to be able to look at a situation like this and feel that justice has been truly done. In his case an appeal is procedural nonsense. With any luck 33 years to life will be life.

2 people like this
Posted by Bru
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 15, 2013 at 3:31 pm

Bru is a registered user.

I agree with most of the sentiments here ... if this guy gets out before he dies, it will be too soon. I suppose it is understandable to someone out there why a family would support a criminal like this so strongly, but not me, abuse and murder should no motivate lies and clever legal strategies ... but I am sure they do all too often.

Like this comment
Posted by Bru
a resident of Crescent Park
on Dec 15, 2013 at 3:59 pm

Bru is a registered user.

Interesting fact from the "documentary" link listed here. The next door neighbor John Ekland owned the house and never mentioned that fact to police or firefighters when they were there responding to the emergency. He also owed money on the house, and also had somehow gotten two homeowner policies on the house which would have given him a double payout if something happened to it.

When police interrogated Ekland he started talking about a mysterious white truck with a driver reading the paper so as to obstruct his the driver's face. Ekland claimed that he did not know he had two homeowner policies on the house, and his alibi was that he was having dinner with friends and family.

What a weird story.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 11 comments | 3,539 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,190 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,140 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 1 comment | 804 views

One-on-one time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 221 views