Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_95-cv-05108/USCOURTS-caed-1_95-cv-05108-19/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD AVERY McPETERS,

 Petitioner,

 v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, AS WARDEN OF SAN 

QUENTIN CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:95-cv-05108-LJO-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER CONTINUING EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING

Continued Hearing:

Date: June 9, 2015

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 9

Judge: Stanley A. Boone

SCHEDULING ORDER FOR EVIDENTIARY 

HEARING

Petitioner’s federal petition was filed on April 22, 1996. Following litigation concerning 

the procedural default of several claims and merits briefing by the parties, Petitioner filed a 

motion for evidentiary hearing, record expansion, and discovery on June 7, 1999. On October 8, 

2004, the Court granted this motion, in part, as to Claims 4, 6, 15A, 16, 21, and 22. Claim 4 

alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for the failure to present an insanity defense. Claim 6 

alleges ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to present a defense that Petitioner was 

legally unconscious due to mental illness, drug-induced psychosis, or both, and lacked the mens 

Case 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 292 Filed 01/16/15 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

2

rea necessary for the crimes for which he was convicted. Claims 15A and 16 allege ineffective 

assistance of counsel for failure to present mitigating evidence and conduct adequate crossexamination at the penalty phase. Claim 21 raises a substantive claim of mental incompetence 

throughout the entire proceeding. Claim 22 alleges Petitioner was deprived of the benefit of 

adequate mental health assistance due to the ineffective assistance of counsel alleged in Claims 

4, 6, and 15A.

Besides the six Claims for which an evidentiary hearing was granted, Claims 11 and 35 

were reserved pending the outcome of the evidentiary hearing. The merits of record-based 

Claims 8, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 34 have not been addressed. 

The matter was stayed on September 18, 2006, pursuant to Rohan ex rel. Gates v. 

Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003), due to Petitioner’s incompetence (ECF No. 244).

Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Ryan v. Gonzales, 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013), this Court, 

on November 19, 2013, issued an order reinstituting preparations for the evidentiary hearing 

(ECF No. 265).

The November 19, 2013 order identified, and directed the parties to respond to, the 

following issues to be resolved at evidentiary hearing (ECF No. 265 at 4:6-26): 

1) Petitioner’s mental and physical condition after his arrest and prior to his booking 

into the Fresno County Jail; 

2) Whether Petitioner was placed in a safety cell contemporaneous with his booking into 

the Fresno County Jail and the reasons therefor; 

3) Whether Petitioner’s anti-psychotic medication was prescribed for and administered 

to him contemporaneous with his booking into the Fresno County Jail; 

4) Whether Petitioner’s attorney abandoned his guilt phase defense strategy to present 

mental health experts because he was unable to establish a foundation of drug 

involvement; 

5) Whether the results of drug tests conducted on Petitioner’s blood were reliable 

indicators of his intoxication and/ or mental state at the time of the offense; 

6) Whether Petitioner’s attorney fully appreciated the import of the toxicological test 

Case 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 292 Filed 01/16/15 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

3

results, erroneously accepted the prosecutor’s inaccurate characterization that the 

blood vial which tested positive for PCP in an appreciable quantity was contaminated, 

and incompetently failed to investigate the matter himself; and 

7) Whether the declarations of Petitioner’s mental health experts, including the turnaround testimony of Dr. Joel Fort, are based on reliable, supportable facts, including 

Petitioner’s alleged long-term history of drug and alcohol abuse. 

The parties filed their respective responses to these issues (ECF Nos. 268-270). The parties also 

filed an initial joint pre-evidentiary hearing statement (ECF No. 275). 

A telephonic case management conference was held on August 4, 2014 during which an

evidentiary hearing was set for June 2, 2015 (ECF No. 276). 

A telephonic status conference was held on January 16, 2015, during which the parties 

agreed to continue the June 2, 2015 evidentiary hearing to June 9, 2015. Counsel Gary Sowards 

and Margo Hunter appeared for Petitioner and Counsel Tami Krenzin and Jeff Grant appeared 

for Respondent.

The Court now provides further scheduling and direction for the evidentiary hearing. 

It is HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. The evidentiary hearing currently set for June 2, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 

9 is continued to June 9, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. in Department 9 before the undersigned. The parties 

need not appear for hearing on June 2, 2015.

2. Not later than February 27, 2015: 

a. The parties shall disclose expert witness testimony and related reports 

pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2). Any motion to conduct a pre-hearing discovery deposition of an 

opposing party’s expert shall be filed within 10 days of the disclosure. Any motion to exclude an 

opposing party’s proffered expert witness shall also be filed within 10 days of the disclosure. 

Opposition to either motion shall be filed 10 days thereafter, and if the Court deems a hearing 

necessary the matter shall be set for telephonic hearing 7 days thereafter or on the next available 

date on the Court’s calendar.

b. The parties shall disclose lay witness lists. Any motion to conduct a preCase 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 292 Filed 01/16/15 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

4

hearing discovery deposition of an opposing party’s lay witness shall be filed within 10 days of 

the disclosure. Any motion to exclude an opposing party’s lay witness shall also be filed within 

10 days of the disclosure. Opposition to either motion shall be filed 10 days thereafter, and if the 

Court deems a hearing necessary the matter shall be set for telephonic hearing 7 days thereafter 

or on the next available date on the Court’s calendar.

c. The parties may request that Petitioner attend the evidentiary hearing in 

person or participate via video conference.

3. Not later than April 24, 2015: 

a. The parties shall disclose rebuttal expert witness testimony and related 

reports. Any motion to conduct a pre-hearing discovery deposition of an opposing party’s 

rebuttal expert shall be made within 10 days of the disclosure. Any motion to exclude an 

opposing party’s proffered rebuttal expert shall also be filed within 10 days of the disclosure. 

Opposition to either motion shall be filed 10 days thereafter, and if the Court deems a hearing 

necessary the matter shall be set for telephonic hearing 7 days thereafter or on the next available 

date on the Court’s calendar.

b. Either party may file any discovery motion(s) not otherwise provided for 

in this schedule. Opposition to such motions shall be filed 10 days thereafter, and if the Court 

deems a hearing necessary the matter(s) shall be set for telephonic hearing 7 days thereafter or on 

the next available date on the Court’s calendar. Within 5 days of the Court’s ruling on any 

motion for discovery, any additional discovery ordered by the Court shall be produced. 

4. Not later than May 22, 2015:

a. The parties shall file with the Court and serve upon each other final 

witness and exhibit lists pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3). The parties shall also file copies of any listed 

exhibits not previously filed in this matter.

5. Following the exchange of the parties’ witness and exhibit lists, the parties shall 

meet and confer to determine (i) whether the testimony of certain witnesses, if any, can be 

introduced via written declaration with either a waiver of cross-examination, or consent to 

conduct cross-examination by written interrogatories or by production of the witness by the 

Case 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 292 Filed 01/16/15 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

5

proffering party for cross-examination in court, and (ii) whether they can stipulate to any 

undisputed facts or legal or evidentiary issues. 

6. Not later than June 2, 2015:

a. The parties shall file any in limine motions regarding the admissibility of 

evidence, scope of witness testimony, etc. These motions may be taken up at the outset of the 

evidentiary hearing.

b. The parties shall file a supplemental joint pre-hearing statement, which 

shall (i) identify counsel who will appear at the hearing, (ii) identify any stipulated and 

uncontested facts, and (iii) identify the contested issues of fact and law.

c. The parties shall separately file proposed findings of fact and conclusions 

of law.

7. The evidentiary hearing will address Claims 4, 6, 15A, 16, 21 and 22. Claims 4, 

6, and 21 pertaining to the guilt phase shall be addressed first. The parties, in addressing these 

six Claims, shall include the issues for resolution identified above and the other party’s 

previously filed response thereto and state why proffered evidence does or does not support the 

Claims. 

8. After the evidentiary hearing, the Court may, if necessary, address reserved 

Claims 11 and 35 as well as record-based Claims 8, 18, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, and 34.

9. Evidence shall be presented via live testimony unless the parties stipulate 

otherwise, or the Court so orders. If the other party waives the right to cross-examination or 

consents to conduct cross-examination by written interrogatories, see 28 U.S.C. § 2246, or in 

court, the Court will generally permit the admission of testimony by written declaration. Further, 

under certain circumstances the Court may allow testimony to be introduced from a pre-hearing 

deposition.

10. Counsel shall create five complete, legible and identical sets of exhibits in binders 

as follows: (a) three sets of binders to be delivered to Courtroom Deputy Mamie Hernandez no 

later than May 29, 2015 (one for use by the Courtroom Clerk and one for use by the Court and 

one for purposes of questioning witnesses to be placed at the witness stand); and (b) one set for 

Case 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 292 Filed 01/16/15 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

6

each counsel. All of Petitioner’s exhibits shall be marked sequentially beginning with 1 (e.g., 1, 

2, etc.). All of Respondent’s exhibits shall be marked sequentially beginning with A (e.g., A, B, 

C...AA, BB, CC...AAA, BBB, CCC, etc.). 

11. Ron Davis, Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison, is substituted for his 

predecessor wardens and acting wardens pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). The 

Court Clerk is directed to make the appropriate correction to the docket.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:95-cv-05108-DAD-SAB Document 292 Filed 01/16/15 Page 6 of 6