Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500-10/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

 The court has previously apprised the parties that it will no longer respond to nonmotion “requests” and the like which the parties were filing in lieu of acceptably noticed

motions.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD F. STANLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-95-1500 FCD GGH P

vs.

STEVEN ORNOSKI, Acting DEATH PENALTY CASE

Warden of the California State Prison

at San Quentin,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

The court will address herein one pressing problem that the parties have presented 

concerning discovery and evidence to be relied upon at evidentiary hearing, i.e., the matter of

evidence related to the murder of Cheryl Wright, aka the Colusa County murder.

1

 

Colusa County Murder Issue – Claim 27

The court firmly ruled that no evidentiary hearing would be held on the so called

suppression of the Colusa County District Attorney’s decision not to seek an indictment against

petitioner Stanley for the murder of Cheryl Wright. Nevertheless, respondent, and indirectly

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 567 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 3
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

petitioner ask the court to clarify the extent to which the court will permit “relitigation” of the

Wright (Colusa County) murder. The requests are based on a “court comment” at hearing, and

petitioner’s motion for clarification (Docket #540) regarding expansion of the record in which

petitioner refers to the “ineffective assistance of counsel” aspects of Claim 27. 

Petitioner was tasked with specifically delineating the claims, or aspects of claims,

upon which evidentiary hearing was sought. Petitioner did so in his motion filed April 8, 2005. 

Nothing in that motion, and in particular Claim 27, indicates that petitioner sought an evidentiary

hearing on ineffective assistance of counsel regarding counsel’s performance in investigating, or

not, the Colusa County murder.

Claims in a habeas corpus petition and evidentiary hearing motions are each given

a title such that the opposing party may understand what particular federal constitutional

provision was violated, and what is at issue. While rambling briefing or argument at times

inserts some confusion, no confusion can be justified here. Claim 27 is entitled: “Mr. Stanley Is

Entitle (sic) To An Evidentiary Hearing On His Claim Of Prosecutorial Suppression of Material

Information (Claim 27).” Nothing in that section title indicates that petitioner has sought an

evidentiary hearing on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the court only ruled on

the issue presented. The court can find nowhere in the text of that issue presented in petitioner’s

motion where petitioner requests an evidentiary hearing at odds with the section title. The

Amended Petition in this action limits Claim 27 to alleged suppression of evidence, and likewise

does not base a claim involving the Wright murder on ineffective assistance of counsel. The

court has also scrutinized the issues upon which petitioner did seek an evidentiary hearing based

on trial counsel’s performance. None of these issues mention or refer to the Colusa County

Wright murder.

Therefore, as one might expect, the ruling on evidentiary hearing concerning the

Colusa County murder aspect of Claim 27, and necessarily, evidence related to that murder, only

addressed the issue presented. Whether or not, in response to some comment at some hearing,

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 567 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 3
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

the undersigned responded back in such a manner as to confuse counsel, the point remains that

the written order, which controls, unequivocally denied a hearing on the Colusa County murder

issue as presented by petitioner. In other words, the court will not accept evidence at an

evidentiary hearing on the facts of the Colusa County murder—that murder is not part of the

evidentiary hearing presentation. 

Accordingly, insofar as petitioner requests clarification of the previous order

regarding evidentiary hearing regarding expansion of the record with further facts regarding the

Colusa County murder, see Docket # 540, the court will not expand the record nor will it

consider such facts for evidentiary hearing purposes. 

DATED: 10/20/05

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 __________________________________

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

stan1500.ccm

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 567 Filed 10/20/05 Page 3 of 3