Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00254-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ROBERTS, No. CIV S-93-0254 GEB DAD DP

Petitioner,

v. ORDER RE FURTHER DISCOVERY

S.W. ORNOSKI, Acting Warden

of the California State

Prison at San Quentin, 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Respondent.

 /

On September 29, 2005, the court issued an order addressing

petitioner’s motion for discovery and amended supplementary motion

for discovery. Petitioner’s motion was granted in part and denied in

part. (See Order filed September 29, 2005 at 85-86.) The court

ordered respondent to produce certain discovery within thirty days. 

(Id.) However, in his discovery request 85 petitioner sought “[a]n

accurate and complete transcript of the 8/25/80 interview of Marcus

Richardson which was seen by Judge Taft and by Petitioner Roberts

during the state court evidentiary hearing.” (Pet.’s Mot. for

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 1 of 28
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

 The following witnesses testified at the hearing: The 1

Honorable Franklin R. Taft, both of petitioner’s counsel (Claudia

Robinson and Robert Bloom), petitioner Larry Roberts, Deputy Attorney

General Susan Lee, former Deputy Attorney General Karl Mayer and

former correctional officers Thomas Hartman and Robert Horton.

2

Discovery at 24.) By “accurate and complete” petitioner means a

transcript reflecting a statement by Richardson fully exonerating

petitioner of any involvement in the killing that resulted in the

imposition of the death penalty. Without objection by respondent,

petitioner’s request for a limited evidentiary hearing with respect

to discovery request 85 was granted. (Id. at 75.) Both parties

filed pre-hearing statements. 

The limited evidentiary hearing was conducted before the

undersigned in February of 2006. Robert Bloom and Claudia J.

Robinson appeared on behalf of petitioner. Deputy Attorney General

Glenn R. Pruden appeared on behalf of respondent. That hearing

spanned two days and included the testimony of nine witnesses. The 1

matter was fully presented and argued at the hearing. Nonetheless,

at the request of petitioner’s counsel, the parties were given an

opportunity to file post-hearing briefs. In addition, on February

17, 2006, petitioner filed an additional discovery motion asking that

he be administered a court-ordered polygraph examination on the

subject of his testimony at the evidentiary hearing. 

Below, the court will address each of the pending discovery

matters, taking up first petitioner’s discovery request 85 which was

the subject of the limited evidentiary hearing.

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 2 of 28
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

3

I. Discovery Request 85 - The August 25, 1980 Interview of Witness

Marcus Richardson

A. Introduction

Petitioner has long-claimed that in the underlying state

court criminal proceedings the prosecution adulterated tape

recordings and prepared and produced false transcripts of witness

interviews. In particular, petitioner has argued that there is a

transcript of an interview of witness Marcus Richardson in which

Richardson exonerates petitioner by stating that petitioner was not

even present at the scene of the assault on Charles Gardner. 

Petitioner claims that both he and the judge assigned by the

California Supreme Court to preside over the evidentiary hearing in

his state court habeas action, retired Superior Court Judge Franklin

Taft, finally saw this version of the transcript during the course of

those collateral proceedings but that it was then suppressed by

respondent’s counsel once again. In this regard, petitioner’s

counsel claims that at the state court hearing Judge Taft paraphrased

the transcript in which Richardson exonerated petitioner. 

Specifically, petitioner points to the following statements made by

Judge Taft during an in camera conference with respondent’s counsel

(Deputy Attorney Generals Lee and Mayer) at which time witness

interviews were addressed:

THE COURT: The problem I have, I think it’s

principally with Exhibits 1 and 1A. I don’t know

whether you’ve had a chance to look at it or not.

MS. LEE: Um-hum.

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 3 of 28
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

4

THE COURT: But it’s – that’s been called

inculpatory. Now, this is the person, I don’t

know whether you recall, but Marcus Richardson

was the person who was supposedly with Cade, that

Cade mentioned.

MS. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: And Cade drew the map of the place

where everybody was.

MS. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: Right after Cade testified, then this

witness, I mean, was interviewed.

He draws also a map very similar, but puts

everybody in different locations. He impeaches

Cade’s testimony pretty well, and he exonerates

Roberts, so I don’t see how it’s inculpatory.

* * *

THE COURT: Well, I can figure out pretty well

what he’s talking about. Essentially he says

that he’s with Menefield just like Menefield, not

Menefield, hell, with Cade, just like Cade said.

MS. LEE: Yes.

THE COURT: That they talk about going against the

wall, that they then move down the hallway from

where it was, then there’s typical, “You mean,

right here where I think it’s him in that

regard?” And they’re drawing that and put that

on the diagram there, then he said there were two

people involved; that he knows, knows Roberts,

that Roberts was not one of the people involved,

that it was Menefield, and who dropped the knife,

picked it up again, ran up the stairs with

Gardner, chasing him, and he completely leaves

Roberts out although he says he knows, doesn’t

know him personally but he knows him by sight and

who he is, and it seems to me that that’s not

only contradicting Cade which sort of opens the

door on the Supreme Court question: Did Cade

actually see what he said he saw, but also it

raises a Brady issue that I just don’t feel

comfortable closing my eyes to it if it is a

Brady issue.

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 4 of 28
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

 Earlier, on November 29, 2006, in open court with all counsel 2

in attendance, Judge Taft had stated: “ I received some interviews

yesterday and I’ve read the interviews. I think there is some - -

quite a bit of exculpatory statements in the interview, so I’m going

to turn them over, which creates another problem. The interview was

done by Mr. Horton and Mr. Hartman.” (RT at 1196; LEH, Ex. N at

1196). Thereafter, scheduling matters were discussed by the court

and counsel. (Id. at 1197.)

 Petitioner has also asserted that parts of tape recorded 3

witness interviews have never been produced and has suggested that

parts of recordings were destroyed in the process of copying them. 

5

(Reporter’s Transcript (RT) at 2151, 2153-54; Limited Evidentiary

Hearing (LEH) at 325-26, Ex. P at 2151, 2153-54)(emphasis added). 

2

Through his discovery motion, petitioner seeks an order

requiring that an accurate tape recording and transcript of that

interview (i.e. one reflecting statements by Richardson exonerating

petitioner) be produced since it would be highly relevant to

petitioner’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct in both the trial 

court and habeas proceedings.3

Respondent’s counsel has consistently represented that

petitioner and his counsel have received a copy of the only

transcript that exists of the August 25, 1980 Richardson interview. 

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 19; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery

at 24.) Indeed, counsel has represented that with respect to all

requested transcripts and recordings, petitioner has been provided

with complete and accurate versions. Finally, counsel for respondent

suggested that any remaining questions as to whether another

Richardson interview transcript ever existed, could be addressed by a

limited evidentiary hearing.

Given the seriousness of the allegation and the likelihood

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 5 of 28
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

 Judge Taft also explained that because the inmate witnesses 4

were referred to in the transcripts by number rather than by name and

because he did not have a conversion chart, at the time of the state

court hearing he was confused regarding the identity of the inmate

being interviewed in any particular transcript. (Tr. LEH at 45.) 

6

that absent a final resolution by this court the issue would continue

to be the source of contention, a limited evidentiary hearing was

granted. That evidentiary hearing was specifically limited to the

question of whether another version (i.e. one containing exculpatory 

statements attributed to Richardson as alleged by petitioner) of the 

Richardson interview transcript did exist and, if so, what became of

it. Below, the court will summarize the evidence presented at the

hearing. 

B. The Limited Evidentiary Hearing

Retired Superior Court Judge Franklin Taft was appointed by

the California Supreme Court in 2000 to serve as the referee at an

evidentiary hearing in petitioner’s state habeas proceeding. At some

point in those state habeas proceedings, Deputy Attorney General

Susan Lee delivered transcripts of witness interviews to Judge Taft’s

chambers for his review. (Transcript of Limited Evidentiary Hearing

held February 7-8, 2006 (hereinafter Tr. LEH) at 6.) Judge Taft

acknowledged at the evidentiary hearing before this court that at the

state court hearing he stated that he had reviewed an interview

transcript that had “quite a bit of exculpatory statements” but he

now has no specific recollection of the nature of that exculpatory

information. (Tr. LEH at 8, 43-44.) Moreover, Judge Taft had no 

recollection of the content of the interview of witness Richardson.4

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 6 of 28
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

 Although this was Judge Taft’s current recollection, it 5

appears from the transcripts that he in fact likely received the in

camera submission on or about November 28, 2000, the day before his

initial comments regarding the interview transcripts. (Id. at 25-26.)

7

(Tr. LEH at 11.) He did recall bringing Deputy Attorney General Lee

and Mayer into chambers to tell them he intended to order the

previously undisclosed interview transcripts turned over to

petitioner’s counsel because he believed they contained Brady

material. (Id. at 33-35.) Judge Taft also had a vague recollection

that he returned all of the interview transcripts submitted for his

review to Deputy Attorney General Lee and that she gave them to

counsel for petitioner. (Id.) Beyond that, Judge Taft had no

recollection of the date or manner in which those interview

transcripts were provided to petitioner’s counsel at the state habeas

hearing. 

Although acknowledging his statement at the December 18,

2000, hearing regarding the nature of the exculpatory witness

interview he had reviewed, Judge Taft testified that he had been

provided more than one interview shortly before the start of a court

session and had merely “flash read” them. (Id. at 19-20, 32.) He 5

also testified that he was under time pressure during the hearing

because he was simultaneously serving as the civil law and motion

judge in his court. (Id. at 45.) He had no recollection of any

specific document to which he may have been alluding in his comments

set forth above. (Id.) Judge Taft testified that it was possible

that he had misread an interview, resulting in the comments that form

the basis of petitioner’s claim that a second Richardson interview

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 7 of 28
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

8

transcript has been suppressed. (Id. at 32, 45.) He also explained

that in making the comments in question, he was not entering an

evidentiary finding as to what any inmate witness had said in their

interviews but rather was merely explaining why he was ordering the

interview transcripts turned over to petitioner’s counsel. (Id. at

20.) Judge Taft further explained that the matter did not seem

significant at the time of the state court hearing and that he

believed if there was an issue presented by the contents of the

interviews, it would have been raised at that time by the parties who

would spend more time reviewing the transcripts than he had. (Id. at

20, 22-23, 60-61.)

At the time of the hearing before this court there was

doubt in Judge Taft’s mind whether his comments on December 18, 2000

even referred to a Richardson interview transcript. (Id. at 29.) 

However, Judge Taft did have a recollection of petitioner’s counsel

making a “big production” out of wanting all the interview-related 

documents at the state court hearing and, after receiving them, not

following up with any questions to the witnesses about the contents

of those interviews. (Id. at 41, 60.) Moreover, Judge Taft believed

that he would have had any interview transcripts that he believed

petitioner’s counsel may not have previously received, marked as

exhibits to ensure that they had been produced. (Id. at 48.) 

However, in the end and although he continues to express the belief

that perhaps he had confused different interviews with one another,

Judge Taft had no cogent explanation as to what he was referring to

in his comments regarding the existence of exculpatory evidence on

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 8 of 28
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

9

December 18, 2000. (Id. at 53-58.)

Claudia Robinson, one of petitioner’s attorneys both before

this court and in the state court habeas proceedings, testified next.

Attorney Robinson testified that she was at counsel table with

petitioner when, after his in camera review, Judge Taft directed the

clerk to provide petitioner’s counsel with copies of at least two,

and perhaps more, inmate witness interviews just before a recess was

taken. (Id. at 67.) According to attorney Robinson, petitioner’s

other counsel, Robert Bloom, was out of the courtroom at this time.

(Id. at 68.) It was attorney Robinson’s recollection that while

petitioner was looking at one of the documents just delivered to

them, one of the deputy attorney generals asked for the documents

back and that Robinson gathered them and returned them to Deputy

Attorney Generals Lee and Mayer who looked at them and then returned

only one to her. (Id. at 67.) Robinson recounted that she did not

question the deputy attorney generals why only one document was

returned, although she remembered feeling uncomfortable about it and

ultimately expressed her concern to Mr. Bloom. (Id. at 78-80.) 

Attorney Robinson could not describe the documents that

were the subject of this exchange other than to state that they were

type-written, but she believed from the context of the production

that one of them was the interview of Marcus Robinson. (Id. at 69-

70.) She had no recollection whatsoever of whether petitioner said

anything to her about these documents or what he had seen in them,

nor of whether she had seen petitioner say anything to Mr. Bloom when

he returned to the courtroom (Id. at 73-74, 76.) 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 9 of 28
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

 Petitioner had no specific recollection of when during the 6

proceedings this event occurred, though he believed it was toward the

end of the hearing. (Id. at 92-94.) However, a declaration executed

by petitioner in 2001 suggests that at that time petitioner took the

position that he viewed the documents containing the exculpatory

statement approximately a week before the in camera hearing before

Judge Taft. (Id. at 106.) 

 Petitioner could not recall whether Richardson was referred 7

to by name, number or in some other fashion in the documents he saw

that day. (Id. at 91.) 

10

Petitioner Larry Roberts testified at the hearing before

this court to a similar version of events. He recalled that during a

recess in the state habeas hearing sometime after an in camera

session , while attorney Bloom was out of the courtroom, Judge Taft’s 6

clerk delivered two documents to counsel table and indicated that the

judge had sent the documents out for them. (Id. at 83, 92.) 

Petitioner reviewed one of the documents which was Richardson’s

statement that he and his counsel had seen before. (Id. at 83-84.)7

According to petitioner, the second document was another Richardson

statement that began the same as the first but after a few pages

included a statement by Richardson that he had witnessed the stabbing

by two assailants, one of whom was Menefield and the other one of

which was definitely not Roberts. (Id. at 84.) Petitioner testified

that he was in “total shock” upon reading this never-before-seen

statement exonerating him and leaned back in his chair. (Id.) 

According to petitioner, it was then that Deputy Attorney

General Lee stated that the two documents were the same except for

the diagram and that Judge Taft meant for respondent’s counsel to

have only one of them and that Lee retrieved the documents from

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 10 of 28
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

11

attorney Robinson and the paralegal seated at counsel table. (Id.) 

Petitioner testified that upon attorney Bloom’s return to the

courtroom he asked Bloom if he had seen the Richardson statement but

that Bloom was rushing to prepare for upcoming witnesses. (Id. at

84, 95-98.) Petitioner felt no need to discuss the matter further

that day because he was confident that both his counsel and Judge

Taft had seen the Richardson statement which exonerated him. (Id. at

84.) A few days later when he brought the subject up with Bloom

during a prison visit, petitioner described himself as devastated

when his attorney said that no such statement by Richardson existed

and questioned whether he had ever actually seen such a document. 

(Id. at 86-87.)

Finally, petitioner’s attorney Robert Bloom testified that

the handwriting on the Marcus Richardson interview report that was

offered into evidence at the state court habeas hearing, which does

not contain the alleged exculpatory statement at issue, belonged to

attorney Bloom and was used because he had his copy handy. (Id. at

111.) Bloom also testified that, contrary to Judge Taft’s

speculation, the judge’s remarks about exculpatory information in the

interview reports could not have referred to inmate Vichi because no

report of an interview with Vichi ever existed. (Id. at 111-12.) 

Attorney Bloom testified that both by letter and motion he had

attempted to raise the issue of this allegedly missing exculpatory

statement in 2001 without success. (Id. at 112-114.) Finally, Bloom

testified that petitioner’s testimony that he made a comment to Bloom

in court about the statement containing important information was

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 11 of 28
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

12

accurate and that he remembered petitioner saying something to that

effect. (Id. at 116.) To the best of his recollection and based

upon his review of transcripts of the state habeas proceedings, Bloom

believed petitioner made this comment to him on December 6, 2000 and

then called him the next day from prison to discuss the exculpatory

information further. (Id. at 118-19.) Although Richardson did not

testify in the state habeas proceedings until January 11, 2001,

attorney Bloom explained he did not question Richardson about any

exculpatory statements because he did not have a copy of the

transcript reflecting the exculpatory statement and had not reviewed

Judge Taft’s reported comments regarding exculpatory information.

(Id. at 119-22.)

Next, California Department of Correction Sergeant Greg

Demars was called by respondent and testified that he was assigned to

the Investigative Services Unit which dealt with investigations of

prison incidents. (Id. at 136-37.) In late 2000 or early 2001 he

was contacted by Deputy Attorney General Susan Lee to make copies of

all reports, tapes and other evidence the CDC had with respect to the

investigation of the killings of inmate Gardner and correctional

officer Patch. (Id. at 125.) In carrying out that directive,

evidence officer Barbara Evans made a copy of the taped interview of

Marcus Richardson conducted August 25, 1980. (Id. at 127.) There

was an original tape and three tape copies of that interview in the

boxes of evidence and the CDC officers, pursuant to instructions,

made copies of all originals and all copies that were in their files.

(Id. at 127-28, 140-43.) While copying one of the copies of the

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 12 of 28
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

13

Richardson interview, the tape broke inside the recorder. (Id. at

128.) However, the original tape and two of the three copies

remained undamaged and were forwarded to Ms. Lee as requested. (Id.

at 129.) After consulting with Ms. Lee, Demars kept all the

fragments of the copy which broke. Demars also described precautions

that were taken to ensure that the copies of recordings that were

made would be complete and accurate. (Id. at 131-32.) He indicated

that due to varying tape lengths, in May of 2001 they had to re-copy

some of the tapes using a manual recorder instead of a high speed

dubbing machine after Ms. Lee pointed out that some copies she

received were incomplete, with the tape running out before the end of

an interview. (Id. at 152.) 

Deputy Attorney General Karl Mayer testified that he

retired from the Attorney General’s Office after 35 years of service

in September of 2000 but continued working part-time through August

2002. (Id. at 164.) In October of 2000 he attended one of the 

hearings in petitioner’s state habeas proceedings and was invited to

assist in those proceedings by Ms. Lee and Deputy Attorney General

Bass. (Id. at 164-65.) From that point forward he assumed duties

assisting Deputy Attorney General Lee and replaced Mr. Bass. (Id. at

165, 169.) Mayer recalled attending, along with Ms. Lee, an in

camera conference with Judge Taft regarding the transcript of the

Richardson interview. (Id. at 166.) However, he had no recollection

of Judge Taft commenting on exculpatory information contained in that

interview, nor would he have responded to any such comments if they

were made since he was unaware of the record and had not been

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 13 of 28
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

14

involved in the preparation of the case. (Id. at 166-67, 170-71,

173-74.) However, when confronted with the transcript of those in

camera proceedings, Mr. Mayer conceded that he actively participated

in the conference and displayed familiarity with the facts of the

case. (Id. at 176-77.) Mr. Mayer also agreed that after reviewing

the Richardson interview transcript provided by respondent in

preparation for this hearing, he saw nothing in that transcript that

would support Judge Taft’s comments regarding exculpatory

information. (Id. at 179.) Finally, Mayer had no specific

recollection of handing petitioner’s counsel any transcripts nor was

he aware of Ms. Lee destroying or hiding any transcripts from the

defense. (Id. at 168.) Mayer stated that he did not raise an

objection in response to Judge Taft’s remarks regarding exculpatory

information in the Richardson interview transcript and he did not

recall whether Ms. Lee did or not. (Id. at 186.) He also did not

recall discussing the matter either with Ms. Lee or the trial

prosecutor Charles Kirk, with whom he met after Judge Taft’s

comments. (Id. at 187.) He had no explanation to offer as to why he

remained silent after Judge Taft described an undisclosed and

exculpatory statement by Richardson of which he was unaware. (Id. at

195-209.) Mayer did acknowledge that if exculpatory information had

not been turned over to the defense at trial, it would be a Brady

violation. (Id.) Throughout his testimony Mayer asserted that he

was merely the second chair, had little to do with the substance of

the case and therefore could shed no light on the issue now before

this court other than to say he personally was unaware of any

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 14 of 28
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

15

undisclosed Richardson interview. 

The state court record would appear to reflect that Mr.

Mayer was much more active and involved in the substance of the state

habeas proceedings than he now recalls. However, Mayer did testify

that although he never saw an interview transcript in which

Richardson exculpated petitioner, because he was not familiar with

the entire file he could not say if such a document existed in the

Attorney General’s files. (Id. at 195.) 

Retired correctional lieutenant Thomas Hartman testified

that he was the lead officer at California Medical Facility (CMF)

Vacaville, along with Manuel Gloria, Bob Horton and Donald Glenn,

assigned to investigate the August 17, 1980, killings of prisoner

Charles Gardener and correctional officer Albert Patch. (Id. at

210.) In interviewing inmates during that investigation lieutenant

Hartman teamed up with officer Horton and officers Gloria and Glenn

teamed with one another. (Id. at 212.) Transcripts of the inmate

interviews were made and those transcripts were then checked against

the tape recordings by the interviewing officers who also redacted

names of inmates and replaced them with numbers. (Id. at 212-13.) 

Although he had no recollection of any particular interview, based

upon his review of the initials on the tape recording, Hartman

testified that he and Horton interviewed inmate Richardson. (Id. at

212.) Hartman had no recollection of Richardson exonerating Roberts

of the Gardner killing. (Id.) Hartman also testified that he never

altered any of the tape recordings of his inmate interviews in any

way. (Id. at 214.) Hartman stated that at the request of the

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 15 of 28
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

16

prosecutor, he kept a master list of the inmates who were

interviewed, that each time a given witness was interviewed there was

a separate entry reflecting that interview and the master list

indicated that Marcus Richardson was interviewed by officers on

August 25, 1980. (Id. at 215-17, 228.) Hartman agreed that the

master list indicated that Richardson was not interviewed again until

approximately eight months thereafter. (Id. at 230.) Hartman noted

that the interviews were over 25 years ago and he could not recall

what any of the inmates said in interviews. (Id. at 222.) 

Robert Horton appeared next and testified that he retired

in 1987 from his position as a correctional officer and that he was

also assigned to the investigation headed by lieutenant Hartman. 

(Id. at 234.) Horton believed that the officers did not record all

of their inmate interviews but those that were tape recorded were

also transcribed. (Id. at 236.) Horton participated in the

interview of Marcus Richardson on August 25, 1980 and testified that

he did nothing to alter the tape recording or to avoid recording any

exculpatory information provided during that interview. (Id. at

237.) Horton did not recall Richardson exculpating petitioner in his

statement. (Id.) Horton agreed that he had expressed surprise

during the interview that Richardson admitted being at the scene

because most of the inmates interviewed denied any knowledge of the

incident and did not want to get involved. (Id. at 239-40.) He also

agreed that the recording of the interview with Richardson reflected

that it ended with a statement by lieutenant Hartman that perhaps

Richardson would talk to the officers again the following morning.

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 16 of 28
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

17

(Id. at 243.) However, Horton was clear that although he would see

Richardson on the main line and greet him, Richardson was not

interviewed the morning after nor the days following the August 25

interview. (Id. at 243-45.) 

Finally, Deputy Attorney General Susan Lee testified that

she was the lead attorney for respondent in petitioner’s state habeas

proceedings. (Id. at 252.) As a result she became thoroughly

familiar with the case files maintained by the prosecuting trial

attorney, the Department of Justice and CMF-Vacaville pertaining to

petitioner’s prosecution. (Id. at 253-54.) Lee testified that

several weeks into the state habeas hearing, Judge Taft directed that

copies of certain undisclosed substantive inmate interviews be

submitted for in camera review and she complied with that order by

assembling five documents comprising four interviews involving two

inmates and submitting them to the court. (Id. at 256-57, 265.) Lee

reported that the transcripts presented to Judge Taft for in camera

review were the same transcripts now before this court. (Id. at 260-

61, 285; see also LEH Exs. I, J, K, L & M.) She did not prepare a

document or cover letter listing the specific documents that were

presented to Judge Taft for his in camera review. (Id. at 290-91.)

Lee’s recollection was that it was on November 29, 2000,

that at Judge Taft’s direction the court clerk delivered to counsel

table copies of the interview transcripts that the Judge had ordered

disclosed following his in camera review but that it was not until

December 6, 2000 that she handed petitioner’s counsel an extra copy

of a diagram associated with one of the interviews because he did not

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 17 of 28
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

18

seem to have it. (Id. at 262-63.) 

Consistent with attorney Robinson’s testimony, Lee recalled

approaching petitioner’s counsel table after the clerk delivered the 

documents following the court’s in camera review. (Id. at 265.) She

did so because she was shocked by the Judge’s comment on November 29,

2000 about there being “quite a bit of exculpatory materials,” was

confused because she had not been given copies of five documents

which was the number she submitted for in camera review and wanted to

see if petitioner’s counsel had been given any document that she did

not have or was unaware of since she thought she had reviewed all the

materials and did not regard anything in them as exculpatory of

petitioner. (Id. at 265, 287, 293-98.) However, Lee denied taking

any of the documents away from petitioner’s counsel. (Id. at 273-

74.) 

Lee also recalled the in camera hearing she attended with

Mr. Mayer in Judge Taft’s chambers on December 18, 2000. (Id. at

266.) It was her recollection that Judge Taft had called them into

chambers during the testimony of the trial prosecutor, Deputy

Attorney General Charles Kirk, because Judge Taft believed that there

may have been a failure to disclose a Richardson interview to the

defense that was a possible Brady violation, that he intended to

question Kirk about the matter if petitioner’s counsel failed to and 

he wished Kirk to be notified so that he could refresh his

recollection on the matter before responding to questioning. (Id.) 

Lee understood Judge Taft to be referring to the Richardson interview

of August 25, 1980 that is before this court. (Id. at 266.) She

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 18 of 28
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

19

was dismayed by Judge Taft’s statement, quoted above, that Richardson

exculpated Roberts by saying he was not even present at the scene of

the killings because she felt Judge Taft was confused and was

misreading the interview but that he had already ruled by ordering

the interview transcript disclosed to petitioner’s counsel. (Id. at

267.) Lee had filed a written request for clarification of that

order but it had not been ruled upon. (Id. at 268.) She was also

concerned that the proceedings were being conducted outside the

presence of petitioner’s counsel and she did not want to appear to be

attempting to be “sweeping under the rug” something the judge viewed

as a possible Brady violation. (Id. at 268.) For all these reasons,

and because the interview transcript was already disclosed to the

defense and would speak for itself as to its contents, she did not

argue with Judge Taft about what she believed to be his erroneous

reading of the Richardson interview transcript. (Id. at 269, 298,

318.) She then discussed the matter with the trial prosecutor and

reviewed the prosecution discovery records and assured herself that

the transcript of the August 25, 1980 interview of Richardson had, in

fact, been disclosed to the defense prior to trial. (Id. at 270.) 

Lee denied that the trial prosecutor was annoyed with her for

disclosing to Judge Taft a previously undisclosed statement by

Richardson exculpating petitioner. (Id. at 270.) Rather, in her

testimony Lee was adamant that she has never seen or been aware of a 

transcript of the August 25, 1980 interview or any other statement in

which Richardson exculpated petitioner. (Id. at 273, 320, 330.) 

Once Judge Taft indicated that Richardson would be called

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 19 of 28
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

20

to testify at the state court evidentiary hearing, Lee directed an

investigator to interview him and turned a copy of that interview

over to petitioner’s counsel. (Id. at 274-78.) Richardson did

subsequently testify at the state habeas hearing and, according to

Lee, did not in any way exculpate petitioner. (Id. at 280.) 

Finally, Lee denied ever hiding or destroying a statement by

Richardson exculpating petitioner. (Id. at 281.) Lee’s only

explanation for Judge Taft’s comments describing an alleged

exculpatory statement from Richardson was that the judge seemed at

times during the state habeas hearing to be temporarily confused and

to describe things rather loosely. (Id. at 286, 322.) When pressed

by this court for a cogent explanation, Lee went so far as to suggest

that Judge Taft appeared to be unprepared and inattentive during the

state habeas hearing and that as a result he had “conflated” the

statements and testimony of various witnesses to the point of

becoming utterly confused and mistaken in his characterization of

this particular statement. (Id. at 324-330.) 

C. Analysis

This issue is before the court in the context of

petitioner’s motion for discovery. As the court has previously

stated, the parties in a habeas proceeding are not entitled to

discovery as a matter of course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904

(1997); Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 728 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 1013 (2003). Rather, "[a] party shall be entitled

to invoke the processes of discovery available under the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge in the

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 20 of 28
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

21

exercise of his [or her] discretion and for good cause shown grants

leave to do so, but not otherwise." Rule 6(a), Rules Governing §

2254 Cases. See also Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904. Good cause is shown

"where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe

that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to

demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief." Bracy, 520 U.S. at

908-09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)). See

also Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2004). In order to

obtain discovery a petitioner need not demonstrate that he will

prevail on the claim underlying the discovery request. See Bracy,

520 U.S. at 909 (“It may well be, as the Court of Appeals predicted,

that petitioner will be unable to obtain evidence sufficient to

support a finding of actual judicial bias in the trial of his case,

but we hold that he has made a sufficient showing . . . to establish

‘good cause’ for discovery.”); Pham, 400 F.3d at 743. Thus, it has

been “held that a district court abused its discretion in not

ordering Rule 6(a) discovery when the discovery was ‘essential’ for

the habeas petitioner to ‘develop fully’ his underlying claim. Id.

(quoting Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997)). See

also McDaniel v U.S. District Court (Jones), 127 F.3d 886, 888 (9th

Cir. 1997) (finding that the district court “acted well within its

discretion in ordering discovery” where the petitioner’s claims did

“not appear purely speculative or without any basis in the record.”).

Finally, federal courts have “the power to ‘fashion appropriate modes

of procedure,’ including discovery, to dispose of habeas petitions

‘as law and justice require[.]’” Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904 (citations

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 21 of 28
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

 Petitioner’s own testimony provides some arguable basis for 8

the claim as well.

22

omitted) (quoting Harris, 394 U.S. at 299-300). See also Bittaker,

331 F.3d at 728. 

Here, however, the issue is unique. Petitioner’s counsel

has sought discovery of a witness statement which allegedly

exculpates petitioner of the offense for which he was convicted and

sentenced to death. Respondent has long contended that no such

statement ever existed. It cannot be said that the claims stemming

from petitioner’s insistence that such a statement exists and was

suppressed first by the trial prosecutor and later by respondent’s

counsel in state habeas proceedings, are purely speculative or

without any basis in the record. Rather, Judge Taft’s comments on

the record at the state court hearing describing an exculpatory

statement certainly provide some basis for petitioner’s claim. On 8

the other hand, this court cannot order the production of a statement

that has never existed.

Through discovery ordered by this court and by way of the

limited evidentiary hearing, petitioner’s counsel has been given

every opportunity to develop fully his underlying claim in this

regard. In order to obtain an order requiring respondent’s counsel

to produce such a statement, petitioner must convince this court that

such a recorded statement existed at some time. He has failed to do

so.

As noted at the hearing, the most persuasive evidence

petitioner is able to point to are the statements made by Judge Taft

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 22 of 28
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

 Judge Taft also explained that the matter did not seem 9

significant at the time of his comments and that he believed if there

was an issue presented by the contents of the interviews, it would be

raised by the parties in the state habeas proceedings. This aspect of

Judge Taft’s testimony is consistent with Deputy Attorney General

Lee’s testimony that during the state habeas hearing she found Judge

Taft to be prone to describe things loosely. For, if Judge Taft

truly believed at the time that a witness statement completely

exonerating petitioner had been suppressed by the prosecution for

years, he would have certainly considered it to be an extremely

significant matter.

23

at the state habeas proceedings. As this court has acknowledged,

Judge Taft’s comments are most remarkable because of the detail in

which they describe a witness statement exonerating petitioner. See

supra at 4. Judge Taft testified before this court that something he

saw, or believed he saw, caused him to make those comments. However,

Judge Taft did not come before this court and testify that he

recalled reviewing a report of interview in which a witness

exculpated petitioner. Rather, he testified that he had merely

“flash read” several interview reports, did so under time pressure,

was confused by the manner in which the reports referred to various

prisoners and conceded that he may have misread the reports and thus

mischaracterized them in his comments. This court has carefully 9

considered the testimony and feels compelled to accept Judge Taft’s

explanation that he may have simply, and unfortunately, made the

comments in question based upon a hurried misreading of interview

reports. 

The other evidence relied upon by petitioner does not

significantly add to his showing. Petitioner himself has testified

that he briefly read a witness interview that exonerated him. 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 23 of 28
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

 The correctional officers’ testimony also rejected any notion, 10

as later suggested by petitioner, that Richardson was interviewed

shortly after August 25, 1980, and may have made a statement 

exculpating petitioner at that time.

24

However, petitioner is challenging his capital conviction in these

proceedings. He obviously has much to gain in making this claim. 

Indeed, given the critical nature of the matter, petitioner could not

be blamed for now believing he saw such a statement even if none

existed. Attorney Robinson’s testimony, describing the handling of

materials at counsel table after Judge Taft’s in camera review,

attempted to cast the events in a sinister light but in reality adds

little to the showing. Attorney Robinson never saw a witness

interview containing any exculpatory information. Finally,

petitioner failed to make any showing whatsoever substantiating his

repeated claim that respondent’s counsel had tampered with tape

recordings of witness interviews. 

Balanced against this weak showing by petitioner,

respondent has presented the testimony of the investigating

correctional officers and Deputy Attorney General Lee, who

represented respondent at the state habeas hearing. Those witnesses

testified that they have never seen nor been made aware of any 

interview of inmate Richardson in which the witness exonerated

petitioner. The testimony of these witnesses on this point was 10

credible and was not impeached. Finally, it is undisputed that in

his testimony at the state habeas hearing, Richardson did not

exculpate petitioner.

Based upon the evidence presented, the court is not

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 24 of 28
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

25

persuaded that the exculpatory statement sought by petitioner through

his discovery request has ever existed. Accordingly, petitioner’s

request 85 for discovery will be denied. 

II. Petitioner’s Motion to Have A Polygraph Examination Administered

Petitioner has also moved the court to authorize the

administration of a polygraph examination regarding his testimony at

the limited evidentiary hearing. In short, petitioner seeks the

examination to help establish he was being truthful when he testified

before this court that during the state habeas hearing he briefly saw

a witness interview which exculpated him. Because the undersigned

finds that the results of the desired polygraph examination would not

be relevant to the disposition of discovery request 85, petitioner’s

motion will be denied.

“The question of admissibility of unstipulated polygraph

evidence has had a long history in this circuit and around the

country.” United States v. Benavidez-Benavidez, 217 F.3d 720, 723

(9th Cir. 2000). A discussion of the current state of the law should

begin with reference to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509

U.S. 579 (1993), in which the Supreme Court set out a number of

factors regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence. In

United States v. Cordoba, 104 F.3d 225, 227-28 (9th Cir. 1997)

(“Cordoba I”), the court held that Daubert overruled any per se rule

preventing the admission of unstipulated polygraph evidence. 

Nonetheless, polygraph evidence remains disfavored. In

Cordoba I, the Ninth Circuit expressed no “new enthusiasm for

admission of unstipulated polygraph evidence,” noting its “grave

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 25 of 28
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

26

potential for interfering with the deliberative process.” Cordoba I,

104 F.3d at 228. See also United States v. Thomas, 167 F.3d 299, 308

(6th Cir. 1999). Presently, the admission of unstipulated polygraph

evidence is left to the “wide discretion” of the trial court,

consistent with Daubert standards. Benavidez-Benavidez, 217 F.3d at

724. See also United States v. Jordan, 256 F.3d 922, 933 n.7 (9th

Cir. 2001); Cordoba I, 104 F.3d at 228. “[D]istrict courts are free

to reject the admission of polygraph evidence on the basis of any

applicable rule of evidence without analyzing all other potential

bases of exclusion.” Benavidez-Benavidez, 217 F.3d at 724 (affirming

exclusion of unstipulated polygraph evidence under Fed. R. Evid.

403). See also United States v. Booth, 309 F.3d 566, 573 (9th Cir.

2002); United States v. Campos, 217 F.3d 707 (9th Cir. 2000)(holding

unstipulated polygraph evidence concerning defendant’s mental state

inadmissible under Fed. R. Evid. 704(b) when it involves “ultimate

issue” of mens rea).

Here, the proposed polygraph evidence would be of

questionable relevance to resolution of the discovery issue before

the court. Petitioner as the proffering party has made no showing

that such evidence would be based upon sufficient facts or data and

be the product of reliable principles and methods. See F.R.E. 702. 

As alluded to above, polygraph evidence is viewed with great

skepticism and as being of questionable reliability. See United

States v. Gardiner, 463 F.3d 445, 468 (6th Cir. 2006); Cordoba, 104

F.3d at 228 (noting that the "inherent problematic nature” of

polygraph evidence “remains"); Granite State Ins. Co. v. Smart

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 26 of 28
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

27

Modular Tech. Inc., 76 F.3d 1023, 1031 (9th Cir. 1996). As the

Supreme Court has observed: “[T]here is simply no consensus that

polygraph evidence is reliable. To this day, the scientific

community remains extremely polarized about the reliability of

polygraph techniques.” United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 309

(1998). These concerns are particularly applicable when such

evidence is offered merely to bolster the credibility of a witness. 

This court has already observed petitioner testify and listened to

his testimony. See F.R.E. 403. The questions his counsel proposes

to polygraph him on, all involve his account of a brief moment over

six years ago, about which he testified in detail before this court. 

As also noted above, it would even be understandable if petitioner

now believed he had in fact seen a statement exculpating him even if

such a statement never existed. In any event, there has been no

showing that a polygraph exam administered to petitioner would assist

the court in ruling on this discovery request. Finally, there has

been no particularized showing as to the reliability of such testing

under these circumstances. See United States v. Gianakos, 415 F.3d

912, 925 n.8 (8th Cir.), cert. denied ___U.S.___, 126 S. Ct. 764

(2005). 

Accordingly, petitioner’s motion is denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s discovery request 85 is denied;

2. Petitioner’s motion for a polygraph examination is

denied; and

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 27 of 28
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

28

3. This case is set for status conference on May 7, 2007

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 27.

DATED: March 30, 2007.

ddad1/orders.capital/roberts.0254.discoah

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 328 Filed 03/31/07 Page 28 of 28