Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02985/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02985-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YOUNG LOR,

Petitioner, No. 2:08-cv-2985 GEB DAD P

vs.

TOM FELKER,

Respondent. ORDER 

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a petition for a writ

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 7, 2012, this court issued an order

setting a June 20, 2012 evidentiary hearing on petitioner’s claims that he received ineffective

assistance of trial counsel due to his counsel’s conflict of interest and that the prosecutor violated

his right to a fair trial by failing to disclose exculpatory evidence to the defense. On May 17,

2012, respondent filed a motion for reconsideration by the assigned District Judge of the May 7,

2012 order. On July 31, 2012, the District Judge denied respondent’s motion for reconsideration. 

In light of the ruling by the District Judge, this court will hereby reset the evidentiary hearing in

this matter.

/////

/////

1

Case 2:08-cv-02985-TLN-DB Document 82 Filed 08/06/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. An evidentiary hearing is set for October 5, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 27;

and 

2. The evidentiary hearing will be limited to: (1) the receipt of testimony from

petitioner’s trial counsel regarding the issues described by the court at the January 6, 2011 

hearing on petitioner’s motion for an evidentiary hearing; and (2) the receipt of any other 

evidence relevant to the disposition of the issues raised by the pending petition as discussed in

this court’s May 7, 2012 order.

1

DATED: August 3, 2012.

DAD:8

lor2985.reset

As discussed at the January 6, 2011 hearing, it is anticipated that the evidence presented 1

will focus on the following issues: (1) what was divulged to petitioner’s trial counsel by the

prosecution with respect to any and all charges brought against Andy Vang in connection with the

incident which resulted in petitioner’s conviction; (2) what was otherwise known to defense counsel

about Vang being charged in connection with that incident; (3) what was the final resolution of the

criminal charges brought against Vang in connection with that incident; (4) what was the nature of

the relationship between Vang and his family and petitioner’s counsel, including the facts

surrounding trial counsel being approached byVang’s family; (5) what was the relationship between

trial counsel’s prior law firm and Vang; (6) were all relevant facts regarding the possible conflict of

interest divulged to petitioner by his counsel; (7) the nature of the waiver of conflict free

representations that was entered on the record by petitioner at his trial; (8) on what basis were

decisions made by petitioner’s trial counsel’s with respect to his cross-examination of Vang at trial;

and (9) specifically, whether petitioner’s trial counsel was influenced in the manner in which he

cross-examined Vang and Det. Kang by any prior representation of Vang by himself or his previous

law firm, whether divulged or not divulged to petitioner.

2

Case 2:08-cv-02985-TLN-DB Document 82 Filed 08/06/12 Page 2 of 2