In re Peter Sakarias on Habeas Corpus

Sakarias and Waidla were tried separately for the same murder after Sakarias was found incompetent and the cases severed, though the evidence indicated Waidla struck the fatal blow while Sakarias inflicted only post-mortem wounds. At each defendant's own trial, the prosecutor nonetheless portrayed that defendant as having inflicted all of the victim's wounds, deliberately avoiding questioning at Sakarias's trial an expert witness whose testimony would have undercut that theory. Both defendants were convicted and sentenced to death, and both petitioned the state supreme court for habeas corpus based on the prosecution's use of inconsistent theories.