Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04096/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-04096-6/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL GALLOWAY,

Petitioner,

 v.

 DERRAL ADAMS,

Respondent. /

No. C 03-04096 JSW

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATE

OF APPEALABILITY

On January 30, 2007, this Court denied Petitioner Paul Galloway’s (“Petitioner”)

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the merits. Petitioner now requests a

certificate of appealability.

BACKGROUND

On February 18, 1999, a jury in Santa Clara County found Petitioner guilty of second

degree murder, attempted non-premeditated murder, and vehicle theft. The jury found

Petitioner not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder. On May 14, 1999, Petitioner was

sentenced to a total state prison term of 19 years plus 20 years to life. The facts underlying

Petitioner’s conviction are set forth in the Court’s Order denying the Amended Petition on the

merits and shall not be repeated here.

LEGAL STANDARD

A petitioner may not appeal a final order in a federal habeas corpus proceeding without

first obtaining a certificate of appealability (“COA”) (formerly known as a certificate of

probable cause to appeal (“CPC”)). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A judge shall grant a COA “only

Case 3:03-cv-04096-JSW Document 30 Filed 03/02/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

2

if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483 (2000). 

“Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing

required to satisfy [section] 2253(c) is straightforward: the petitioner must demonstrate that

reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

debatable or wrong.” Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. This requires an overview of the claims in the

habeas petition and a general assessment of their merits. It does not require full consideration

of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the claims. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336 (2003). Nor does it require a showing that the appeal will succeed. Id.; accord

Lambright v. Stewart, 220 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2000) (issuance of COA is not precluded

merely because petitioner cannot meet standard for actually obtaining habeas relief). The

question is the debatability of the underlying claim, not the resolution of that debate. Miller-El,

537 U.S. at 342.

Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” section

2253(c)(2) codified the standard announced by the United States Supreme Court in Barefoot v.

Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 892-93 (1983). See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483. In Barefoot, the Supreme

Court explained that “a substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right” means that a

petitioner “must demonstrate that the issues are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court

could resolve the issues [in a different manner]; or that the questions are adequate to deserve

encouragement to proceed further.” Barefoot, 463 U.S. 893 n.4. (citations and internal

quotations omitted). The COA must indicate which issues satisfy the section 2253(c)(3)

standard, and the Court of Appeals is limited to considering only those claims. Hivala v. Wood,

195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner raised five claims for relief in his amended petition. Petitioner’s first claim

alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective because he: did not retain a ballistics expert; did

not retain a toxicology expert; and did not call a co-defendant, Johnny Dagnino, as a witness. 

Petitioner’s second claim alleged that the trial court violated his constitutional right to present a

Case 3:03-cv-04096-JSW Document 30 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

28

3

defense, because the trial court refused to instruct the jury on the defense theory of the case. 

The third claim for relief alleged that the trial court interfered with Petitioner’s rights to the

effective assistance of counsel and to a fair trial by refusing to allow his investigator to sit at the

defense table and by limiting trial counsel’s communications with his investigator. Petitioner’s

fourth claim alleged that he was deprived of a fair trial because of prejudicial prosecutorial

misconduct. Petitioner’s fifth claim alleged that the trial court violated his federal constitutional

right to a public trial and violated his procedural due process rights by closing the court room to

the public when a portion of the Petitioner’s testimony was reread to the jury. 

The Court concludes that with respect to Petitioner’s claim that his trial counsel was

ineffective for failing to call a ballistics expert, Petitioner has demonstrated that this question is

adequate to deserve encouragement to go further. However, with respect to the remaining

claims, and recognizing that in ruling on the request for a COA, Petitioner need not demonstrate

that he will succeed on appeal, for the reasons set forth in its Order denying the amended

petition on the merits, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not demonstrated that the issues

are debatable among jurists of reason; that a court could resolve the issues in a different

manner; or that the questions are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. 

Accordingly, Petitioner’s application for a COA is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-04096-JSW Document 30 Filed 03/02/07 Page 3 of 3