Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01151/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01151-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INEZ TITO LUGO,

NO. CIV. S-99-1151 LKK/GGH P

Petitioner,

v. O R D E R

WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA

MEDICAL FACILITY, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this

application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No.

262. 

On September 3, 2004, the magistrate judge in the abovecaptioned case issued findings and recommendations recommending

that this action be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief could be granted. Petitioner filed objections to the

findings and recommendations. 

Case 2:99-cv-01151-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 09/21/05 Page 1 of 4
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 The court reviews these two claims de novo. These claims

were raised in the petitioner’s habeas petition filed in the

California Supreme Court. The California Supreme Court rejected

this petition on procedural grounds and did not consider the merits

of the claims. Accordingly, the court is not bound by the AntiTerrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) standard of

review and conducts a de novo review of these claims. Pirtle v.

Morgan, 313 F.3d 1160, 1167-68 (9th Cir. 2002).

2

The court is in agreement with the magistrate judge’s

conclusions concerning claims one (1) and two (2) and claims five

(5) and six (6). With respect to claims three (3) and four (4),

the court seeks additional clarification. Claims three (3) and

four (4) involve the issue of the failure to obtain a waiver of

presence during the read back and play back of trial testimony

during jury deliberations.1 See Turner v. Marshall, 63 F.3d 807,

815 (9th Cir. 1995)(defendant must personally waive his right to

be present at read back of trial testimony)(overruled on other

grounds by, Tolbert v. Page, 182 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 1999)); see

also United States v. Felix-Rodriguez, 22 F.3d 964, 967 (9th Cir.

1994)(error to permit replay of testimony without first obtaining

defendant’s personal waiver of his right to be present).

Failure to allow the defendant to be present at the read back

of testimony is constitutional error, subject to harmless error

review. Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1477 (9th Cir. 1995). On

collateral review, the district court must determine whether the

error “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in

determining the jury's verdict.” Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S.

619, 638 (1993); Hegler v. Borg, 50 F.3d 1472, 1477 (9th Cir.

1995).

Case 2:99-cv-01151-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 09/21/05 Page 2 of 4
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

2 Several courts confronting the issue of read backs of

testimony outside the presence of the defendant have found harmless

error, but have done so only after an evidentiary hearing at which

the relevant parties, such as the court reporter or jurors, were

questioned. Turner, 63 F.3d at 815; see also Hegler, 50 F.3d at

1478 (finding no prejudice where court reporter who did not

remember read back in questions, testified that she was trained to

read back testimony in a neutral manner); Lee v. Marshall, 42 F.3d

1296, 1298 (9th Cir. 1994)(finding after an evidentiary hearing

that allowing the presence of a government agent in the jury room

during a playback of testimony constituted harmless error);

Bustamante v. Eyman, 456 F.2d 269, 274 (9th Cir. 1972)(requiring

an evidentiary hearing to determine if a replay of jury

instructions outside defendant's presence constituted harmless

error).

3

The court requests the assistance of the Federal Defender to

determine the effect of the petitioner’s non-waiver. It is unclear

to the court what remedies and procedures are appropriate in light

of this error.2 The court requests that the Federal Defender, in

consultation with petitioner, propose an appropriate remedy or

procedure to address this error. 

In light of the complexity of the legal issues involved, the

court has determined that the interests of justice require

appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also

Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent

petitioner;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the

petition, the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, and

this order on Quin Denver, Federal Defender; and

////

Case 2:99-cv-01151-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 09/21/05 Page 3 of 4
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

3. A Status Conference is now SET for December 5, 2005 at

1:30 p.m. in Courtroom No. 4. As he is now represented by counsel,

petitioner need not be present.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 20, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:99-cv-01151-LKK -GGH Document 43 Filed 09/21/05 Page 4 of 4