Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-1/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

27

28

* Steven W. Ornoski is substituted for his predecessors Hill L.

Brown and J.D. Stokes, as Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison

97dp6210.OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wp pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). d

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE HOLT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Steven W. Ornoski, As Action )

Warden of San Quentin )

State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-97-6210-AWI-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

DATE: September 26, 2005

TIME: 3:30 p.m.

COURTROOM THREE

This matter came on for a third Case Management Conference

(hereafter “CMC”) on September 26, 2005 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3

of the above-entitled Court, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii,

presiding. Petitioner John Lee Holt (“Holt”) appeared by and through

his counsel of record, Robert M. Myers, of Newman, Aaronson & Vanaman,

and Assistant Federal Defender Jennifer M. Corey. Respondent Steve

W. Ornoski, as Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the

“Warden”) appeared by and through his counsel of record, Deputy

Attorney General Sean M. McCoy. All counsel entered their appearances

telephonically.

The CMC was scheduled to discuss the parties’ progress in

preparing for the anticipated limited evidentiary hearing ordered

March 30, 2004. In particular, the CMC was convened to assess the

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 120 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 6
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

97dp6210.OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 2

efficacy of efforts to narrow the scope of factual disputes as well

as the parties’ joint efforts to agree to admit evidence already part

of the record.

The parties timely filed a Joint Case Management Statement on

September 19, 2005 (“Joint Statement”). As is evident from the Joint

Statement two factors have impeded the process of the evidentiary

hearing preparation. First, Mr. McCoy was only recently assigned to

the case, making his first appearance on June 1, 2005. Second, the

parties have become embroiled in a dispute over the scope of a

proposed protective order regarding turning over case files generated

by Holt’s trial attorneys and trial investigators. In spite of these

impediments the parties nonetheless set out their respective positions

about conducting discovery and submitting direct testimony by written

declaration and deposition transcript. Unfortunately, due to Mr.

McCoy’s recent appointment to the case, and Mr. Myers’ desire to

hasten the pace of conducting the anticipated evidentiary hearing, the

parties have not been able to agree on a schedule. The Joint

Statement does not address the more fundamental question of how the

parties intend to narrow the scope of evidence presented to the Court.

While the Court is concerned with delays in bringing this matter

to an evidentiary hearing, it also recognizes that Mr. McCoy only

recently has been given the appreciable task of becoming familiar with

this case. Accordingly, the Court declines to set a discovery and

briefing schedule at this time, but rather continues the present CMC

to December 19, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. to give Mr. McCoy the time necessary

to realistically evaluate the case. Five court-days before the

hearing, the parties are directed to file a supplemental Joint Case

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 120 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 6
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

97dp6210.OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 3

Management Statement in which the Court’s concerns about scope and

breadth of the evidentiary hearing will be addressed.

The parties are reminded that the March 30, 2004 order granting

a limited evidentiary hearing was predicated on substantial evidence

presented by Holt that he lacked the necessary mental faculties to

have committed capital murder or to be tried. A subsidiary issue

involves the mental state of one of Holt’s jurors, Mr. Billy Ross,

which again was brought to the Court’s attention based on substantial

testimonial and documentary evidence. These factors shall inform the

parties’ responses to the following concerns.

1. Since an unspecified number of the 219 witnesses Holt has

designated in his witness list are employees of the California

Department of Corrections, it seems clear he anticipates

introducing significant post-incarceration testimony and

documents. The Court would like an explanation of the relevance

of such testimony to the guilt phase issues of the impartiality

of Juror Billy Ross, Holt’s mental competence at the time of

trial, his mental state at the time of the crime, and/or

physical evidence concerning whether he committed a completed

rape. One relevant subject matter for post-incarceration

evidence is rebuttal to a potential claim of malingering. But,

no malingering allegation has been made. The parties are

directed to inform the Court whether the Warden intends to

advance this principle. The parties are further directed to

advise the Court as to whether there is some other purpose for

this post-incarceration evidence. Also, the Court would like to

be informed of the progress of interviewing prison employees and

whether the Warden is cooperating in this endeavor.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 120 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 6
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

97dp6210.OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 4

2. Holt should not be developing cumulative or repetitive evidence.

As the parties have been reminded, a substantial body of

testimonial and documentary evidence already has been reviewed

by the Court. The Court is not interested in receiving evidence

that duplicates expert testimony already reviewed, even though

there have been advances in mental health care and neurological

testing since the evidence originally was submitted. Funding

cannot and will not be authorized simply to redraft augmented or

updated declarations. Rather, the Court is interested in the

parties’ joint efforts to agree on admitting evidence that

already is in the record, particularly declarations of Holt’s

experts and foundational documentary evidence. While the Court

does not anticipate that the Warden will stipulate to the

opinions and conclusions in those declarations and documents, he

and his litigation team most certainly can stipulate to the

admissibility of the documents. The Court would like to know

what efforts have been undertaken to accomplish this.

3. As with expert testimony, the Court is not interested in

reviewing multiple family member declarations which recount

repetitive details of abuse inflicted on Holt and his siblings,

or the wide variety of mental illnesses that family members

suffer. This information should be confirmed by the parties.

If the Warden does not agree to this background information,

then Holt will have to develop it and the Warden will have to

rebut it. If development of such lay foundational evidence

isn’t necessary because the parties can enter into an

appropriately limited stipulation, the Court will provide

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 120 Filed 10/03/05 Page 4 of 6
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

97dp6210.OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 5

whatever assistance and resources it can to assist with this

process.

4. The Warden’s proposed witness list includes the wife and son of

Juror Billy Ross as witnesses. The order granting an

evidentiary hearing, however, specifically limited evidentiary

development for this claim to the fact and the reasons Mr. Ross

delayed in providing the trial court a full explanation of his

dealings with his African-American tenant Mary Callahan,

including possible racial animus, concern for his son Wyatt’s

assault prosecution, and short term memory loss. The Court

anticipated that this evidence would be elicited from Mr. Ross,

himself, not from his son, Wyatt Ross, or his wife, Ramona Ross.

The Court would like a response from the Warden on this issue.

5. The Warden’s proposed witness list also designates both an

expert in sexual assault victims and a gynecological expert.

The Court does not perceive justification for an expert on

sexual assault victims; the only issue regarding the pertinent

claim is whether confidence in the jury’s verdict that Holt

committed a completed rape is undermined in light of additional

evidence developed. The Court would like a response from the

Warden on this issue as well.

With respect to the current conflict over the scope of a

protective order, the Court has two comments which should inform the

parties’ conduct on this particular issue. First, there is no actual

controversy respecting the protective order for the Court to decide.

The Warden has not moved for discovery and Holt has not moved for a

protective order. Until there an actual motion pending by which the

parties are requesting specific relief, the Court cannot and will not

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 120 Filed 10/03/05 Page 5 of 6
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

97dp6210.OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 6

rule. Second, waiver of the attorney-client privilege, the subject

matter of the disputed protective order, has little to do with the

Court’s concerns listed above. The Court questions whether disclosure

to the Warden of trial counsel’s files is so crucial to resolution of

the case that it justifies the delay of having to litigate the scope

of a protective order.

In light of the procedural status of this case, all documents and

pleadings on file, the Court orders the CMC conducted on September 26,

2005 continued to December 19, 2005 at 3:00 p.m., to be conducted

telephonically with counsel for Holt responsible for arranging and

initiating the call. Five-court days prior to that CMC, December 12,

2005, the parties shall file a supplemental Joint Case Management

Statement responsive to this order and which shall inform the Court

of progress being made. If the parties believe an interim telephonic

conference would facilitate any difficulties encountered, the Court

will be available on reasonable notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

c508d4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 120 Filed 10/03/05 Page 6 of 6