Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05294/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-05294-4/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)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MILAN PAUL PAKES,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES A. YATES,

Respondent.

___________________________________/

No. C-04-5294 VRW (EMC)

ORDER RE RESPONDENT’S

OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER’S

SUPPLEMENTAL WITNESS LIST

(Docket No. 32)

Previously, the Court ordered the parties to disclose their witness lists by October 25, 2006,

in preparation for the evidentiary hearing on December 11-12, 2006. Mr. Pakes submitted a list on

October 25 as ordered but thereafter, on November 15, 2006, submitted a supplemental list,

identifying five persons not previously disclosed. The state objected to the supplemental witness

list. The Court held a status conference on November 22, 2006, to address this issue.

A. Milan Pakes, Sr. and Marilyn Pakes

The Court overrules the state’s objection. Mr. Pakes reasonably did not know of the need for

the testimony of his parents until after taking the deposition of his trial counsel Mr. Chacon. In

addition, Mr. Pakes’s parents will provide only limited testimony. Accordingly, the state has

sufficient time to take their depositions prior to the evidentiary hearing. 

B. Jill Bojarksi, Esq.

The state’s objection is essentially moot. At the status conference, Mr. Pakes stated that he

did not intend to call Ms. Bojarski as a witness. Ms. Bojarski will be used at most to authenticate a

Case 3:04-cv-05294-VRW Document 38 Filed 11/27/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

document (i.e., a note reflecting a contemporaneous conversation with trial counsel Mr. Chacon) via

a declaration.

C. Wendie Ruano

The Court sustains the state’s objection. Mr. Pakes’s counsel knew about Ms. Ruano prior to

October 25, 2006, when the parties’ witness lists were due. Indeed, according to counsel, three

years ago, he received a note from Ms. Bojarski telling him about Ms. Ruano. See Sacher Decl. at 3. 

Moreover, the probative value of Ms. Ruano’s testimony is limited at best. According to Mr.

Pakes’s counsel, Ms. Ruano hired Mr. Chacon to represent her brother but fired him after he claimed

to have interviewed witnesses when in fact he had not done so. In the instant case, there is no claim

by Mr. Pakes that Mr. Chacon failed to conduct an investigation. Finally, as discussed below, prior

misconduct by a trial attorney should generally be excluded under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b)

and 403. In addition, “ Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b) . . . prohibits the use of extrinsic evidence

to prove specific instances of misconduct for the purpose of attacking a witness’s credibility.” 

Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 829 (9th Cir. 1995).

D. Michelle Bullington

The Court sustains the state’s objection. Apparently, Ms. Bullington would testify that she is

a former client of Mr. Chacon and that she called him several times regarding her case but that he

failed to get back to her for several weeks. The probative value of this testimony is limited. Mr.

Pakes does not claim that, in his case, Mr. Chacon failed to respond to him in a timely fashion. 

Moreover, prior misconduct by a trial attorney should as a general matter be excluded under Federal

Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. In Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d at 815, the Ninth Circuit

explained:

Because the essential inquiry is whether the petitioner received

objectively reasonable and conflict-free representation, evidence that

the attorney may have erred or acted inappropriately in unrelated cases

will normally have little, if any, probative value, and may therefore be

properly excluded by the district court pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 403. Moreover, because Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)

provides that “evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not

admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in

conformity therewith,” prior acts of misconduct on the part of defense

counsel are inadmissible to support a claim that counsel must have

acted similarly in a particular case.

Case 3:04-cv-05294-VRW Document 38 Filed 11/27/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Id. at 828-29.

Mr. Pakes’s reliance on Sanders v. Ratelle, 21 F.3d 1446 (9th Cir. 1994), is unavailing. 

First, in Sanders, the prior misconduct and the misconduct at issue were generally the same -- i.e., a

failure to investigate. See id. at 1460 (noting that attorney was disbarred for “‘a course of conduct

demonstrating a complete indifference to his legal and ethical duties, to the great detriment of his

clients’” and that, “[i]n most of these instances, [attorney] was retained by clients and then did

nothing to investigate or further their cases” as in the case under consideration). Second, in Bonin,

the Ninth Circuit specifically distinguished Sanders, stating as follows:

Sanders does not hold that prior instances of misconduct or unrelated

complaints to state bar associations should ordinarily be admitted as

evidence that an attorney acted incompetently or that otherwise

presumptively reasonable decisions were actually made due to general

disinterest or other impermissible reasons. Indeed, Sanders did not

concern the admissibility of such evidence at all. Although we held

such evidence relevant in Sanders, we did not address the standards to

be employed by the district court in deciding whether to admit such

evidence and the state apparently offered no objection to its admission

or use.

Id. at 828.

This order disposes of Docket No. 32.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2006

_________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-05294-VRW Document 38 Filed 11/27/06 Page 3 of 3