Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01151/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-01151-5/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

27

28

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424

Acting Federal Defender

DAVID M. PORTER, Bar #127024

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3rd Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

Telephone: (916) 498-5700

Attorneys for Petitioner

INEZ TITO LUGO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INEZ TITO LUGO,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA

MEDICAL FACILITY, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NO. Civ. S-99-1151 LKK GGH 

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Under authority of Title 28, United States Code section 2253(c),

and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 22(b)(1), the Court hereby

certifies that there is cause for an appeal in the above-entitled case. 

Accordingly, a certificate of appealability is hereby granted as to the

following issues: 

(1) Whether the trial court violated Mr. Lugo’s right to due

process when it permitted the playback of a videotape and a

read back of testimony to the jury when Mr. Lugo was not

present and did not waive his presence;

(2) Whether Mr. Lugo’s right to counsel was violated when his

counsel was not present during the playback of the videotape

and the read back of the testimony to the jury;

(3) Whether Mr. Lugo’s rights to due process and a fair trial

were violated when the trial judge was not present when the

videotape was played back and the testimony was read back to

the jury;

Case 2:99-cv-01151-LKK -GGH Document 59 Filed 03/30/07 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

27

28

2

(4) Whether the harmless error standard enunciated in Chapman v.

California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), rather than in Brecht v.

Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993), applies to Mr. Lugo’s claims

that were denied in the state court on procedural grounds,

see Fry v. Pliler, 127 S. Ct. 763 (2006)(per curiam);

(5) Whether the trial court denied Mr. Lugo due process by

failing to conduct a competency hearing;

(6) Whether Mr. Lugo was denied due process by being tried

despite being incompetent;

(7) Whether Mr. Lugo was denied due process when he was induced

to waive his right to a bifurcated trial on issues of guilt

and sanity by a promise that was not fulfilled; 

(8) Whether Mr. Lugo was denied his rights to due process and

trial by jury when the court erroneously instructed the jury

during the sanity phase; and,

(9) Whether the trial court denied Mr. Lugo due process when it

struck the testimony of a defense witness.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 30, 2007.

Case 2:99-cv-01151-LKK -GGH Document 59 Filed 03/30/07 Page 2 of 2