Facts

Bulos Zumot was convicted of the first-degree murder of his girlfriend and arson of their Palo Alto cottage. At his trial, two key pieces of evidence were introduced: a video showing Zumot's arrival at his place of employment which foreclosed the timeline for his alibi; and evidence of domestic violence by Zumot, including a record of a phone call Zumot made to his girlfriend seven weeks before the murder in which he threatened to kill her. Zumot petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus following his conviction and life sentence.

PETITIONER'S CONTENTIONS: Petitioner contended that his conviction rested on two false pieces of evidence that were erroneously admitted at his trial. First, the video evidence introduced by the prosecution showing when petitioner arrived at his place of work, and foreclosing his alibi, was false. The actual video footage did not foreclose his alibi at all. Second, the evidence showing that petitioner made the death threat seven weeks before the killing was also false. That call came from someone entirely unconnected to petitioner. Petitioner sought relief on two grounds arguing (1) the state had presented false evidence and (2) his trial lawyer rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in failing to expose the false evidence.

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS: Respondent contended that no false evidence had been presented and that defense counsel had acted properly.

Result

The court found both of petitioner's claims valid and determined that a writ of habeas corpus should be issued. The state's presentation of false evidence required issuance of the writ, as did defense counsel's failure to expose the false evidence, Petitioner was ordered released unless responded retried him within 120 days from the court's granting of his petition.