Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_90-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-1_90-cv-00363-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN HAMILTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

JILL L. BROWN, Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-90-363-OWW-P

Death Penalty Case

Order Denying Petitioner’s Pro Se

Request for Further Evidentiary

Hearing and for New Counsel, and

Granting Request to Expand the Record

Petitioner Michael Allen Hamilton (“Hamilton”) indicated his intent to file a pro

se request during the re-opened evidentiary hearing held on September 9, 2004. 

Hamilton stated he was giving the request and supporting documents to his federal

habeas counsel for filing. The pro se request was filed October 4, 2004, and the box of

supporting documents were lodged. Hamilton’s pro se request seeks to supplement the

records with the supporting documents, to conduct additional investigation he

contends is necessary for his defense, for a stay of the federal proceedings, for a further

evidentiary hearing, and for appointment of new counsel. On October 24, 2004,

Hamilton requested, by letter, that a copy of the supporting documents be delivered to

counsel for Respondent Jill L. Brown (“the State”).

Hamilton again seeks investigation that he requested at the December 2003

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 330 Filed 05/06/05 Page 1 of 5
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

90dp363.odenyprosemtn.wpd 2

evidentiary hearing: testing of a similar gun and expert evaluation of the crime scene

photos regarding gunshot residue and blowback, investigation into the existence of

surveillance tapes from KMart, and obtaining records regarding the condition of his

truck tire and from his time in jail before and during trial. Hamilton supports his

request for further investigation by observing contradictions between statements and

trial testimony of Carolyn and Gilbert, improper actions by the prosecutor and

Detective Salazar, and inconsistencies between the police reports and other statements

or evidence, including tests done of the truck tire’s ability to hold air pressure. 

Hamilton argues the crime scene, as described by Carolyn and Gilbert and by law

enforcement testimony and reports, does not fit the elements of the charged crime.

Hamilton points out various inconsistencies between Gilbert’s and Carolyn’s

statements and their trial testimonies. Those inconsistencies, however, do not absolve

Hamilton of involvement in Gwen’s murder. Even if Gilbert and/or Carolyn, contrary

to their testimony, observed the shooting, or if one of them was the actual shooter, the

evidence shows that Hamilton was the instigator of the plan to murder Gwen and

obtain the insurance money. He bought the gun, instructed Gilbert and Carolyn on the

plan, and traveled with Gwen to Porterville three day in a row in order to facilitate the

murder. See November 12, 2002 Order (merits denial of actual innocence claim).

Hamilton asserts that discrepancies between various officers’ reports about the

position and lividity of Gwen’s body are inconsistent with Carolyn’s and Gilbert’s

statements about the position of Gwen’s body and the time of the shooting. It is unclear

what significance the contradictory reports by various officers about lividity have, but

the contradictions do not indicate that Hamilton was not responsible for Gwen’s death. 

Regarding the inconsistency between the reported position of Gwen’s body by law

enforcement and the report of lividity contradictory to body position, Lt. Byrd testified

that Hamilton stated when he arrived with his mom and stepfather, he “shook Gwen.” 

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 330 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 5
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

90dp363.odenyprosemtn.wpd 3

RT 7:1698.

Hamilton contends that discrepancies in various officers’ reports and tests of

blowback, gunpowder residue, and the condition of the truck tire contradict the

conclusion that he killed Gwen. Hamilton’s conclusion that the shooter must have

gotten blowback or blood on his/her clothes is inconsistent with the trial testimony of

criminalist Steven O’Clair. RT9:2027-38. There is no indication in the police reports that

any officer at the scene checked the actual pressure of the tire on the GMC. The only

thing the officers’ statements indicate is that the GMC tire was not at full pressure, but

was not completely flat. Further, the loss of air pressure during the officers’ test would

not necessarily remained at the same rate once the tire was removed from the GMC. 

This evidence fails to pinpoint the time of Gwen’s murder, or to exonerate Hamilton.

Hamilton asserts that the investigation into evidence of other individuals who

might have purchased the gun was incomplete. Hamilton’s assertions are not

significant in light of the evidence presented at trial: that Brenda Burns identified

Hamilton as the one who instigated the purchase of the gun at KMart on October 31,

RT8:1800-1806, that Brenda’s sister Sharon confirmed that Hamilton took Brenda to

KMart on October 31, RT9: 2175, and although Lillian Beardsley was unclear about

some of the identities of the persons who purchased the gun on October 31, she

remained constant in her identification of Hamilton as one of the group. RT8:1783-86;

RT9: 2158-68.

Hamilton maintains that counsel failed to obtain phone records showing that

calls were made to their family and friends telling of the happy news of Gwen’s

pregnancy, which Hamilton contends would have contradicted the prosecution’s

assertion that the latest pregnancy put a strain on their marriage, providing a motive for

the murder. There is no evidence, and it is unlikely, that the phone records Hamilton

seeks still exist, but even if they do, alone they would be insufficient to prove his

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 330 Filed 05/06/05 Page 3 of 5
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

90dp363.odenyprosemtn.wpd 4

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The records would not prove his and Gwen’s

“happiness” about the pregnancy, rather testimony from call recipients would be

needed. Further, Hamilton knew (at least he knew at the time of trial and direct appeal)

who the calls had been made to, and he could have requested they be called as

witnesses. However, no statement about such calls was then, or has been to date,

submitted.

Hamilton contends that no investigation was made into a witness’s statement

who overheard Carolyn discussing a murder plot during a party, and that threats were

made against him to prevent him from disclosing what he heard. Hamilton also alleges

that no investigation was made into Patti Ketchem’s 1994 declaration that Hamilton’s

stepfather told her he knew about the murder plan before it happened, or that she

observed Gilbert shower immediately after Carolyn dropped him off on the night of the

murder, or that she went to the crime scene with Gilbert, Carolyn and Ron Stafford the

morning after the murder to search for clues. Hamilton also presents evidence

contradicting Carolyn’s statement that she was afraid of him and showing instead that

she was the leader and liked to be in control.

None of this evidence implicates an unknown person in Gwen’s murder. Nor

does any of this evidence exclude Hamilton from involvement in Gwen’s murder.

Hamilton concludes that the 145 exhibits referenced as supporting documents to

this request represent some of the documentation this court directed his counsel to

obtain in support of the issues he raised at the in-camera hearing. Hamilton asserts

these exhibits show that counsel did not review the file as ordered, which constitutes

ineffective assistance of counsel. Hamilton argues that without the requested

documents, he was unable to adequately represent that his claims were valid. Hamilton

requests that the court review the exhibits submitted and stay all proceedings pending

full investigation of his claims.

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 330 Filed 05/06/05 Page 4 of 5
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

90dp363.odenyprosemtn.wpd 5

The supporting documents to Hamilton’s pro se request include copies of 137

documents. Eight law enforcement reports and witness interviews were referenced but

copies were not attached. The attached supporting documents include 51 documents

which are already part of the record: 18 filed the federal proceeding and 33 which are

part of the state record. Another 75 documents are law enforcement reports (52), and

reports or transcripts of witness interviews (23). The remaining 11 documents are

records from San Quentin, the Ninth Circuit, law enforcement, or previously unfiled

declarations of lay witnesses.

Hamilton’s pro se request for additional investigation, for a further evidentiary

hearing, for a stay of federal proceedings, and for appointment of new counsel is

DENIED. Hamilton’s pro se request to expand the record, and that a copy of the

supporting documents be sent to the State, is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

b64h1h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 330 Filed 05/06/05 Page 5 of 5