Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00118/USCOURTS-azd-2_00-cv-00118-9/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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Richard Dean Hurles, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-00-118-PHX-DLR

DEATH PENALTY CASE 

ORDER 

 Before the Court is Respondents’ motion to strike Hurles’ notice of disclosure and 

preclude testimony by Noel Fidel. (Doc. 174.) The motion will be denied in part as set 

forth below. 

 This matter is set for an evidentiary hearing on January 29, 2016, on Petitioner’s 

judicial bias claim. The Court ordered Hurles to disclose his expert witnesses by October 

29, 2015. (Doc. 157.) Hurles timely disclosed Mark Harrison, a judicial ethics expert, on 

that date. 

 The Court held a status conference on December 16, 2015. On the day of the 

status conference Hurles filed a motion to compel disclosure, seeking a list of every 

special action over the last 25 years in which the Arizona Attorney General’s office 

represented a judge or court as a named party. (Doc. 161.) The Court denied the motion, 

finding that Hurles had not established good cause for the disclosure. (Doc. 170.) The 

Court explained that “information about unrelated special actions where the Attorney 

General’s Office represented a court or a judge are irrelevant to a determination of 

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 178 Filed 01/26/16 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

whether Judge Hilliard in fact was personally involved in Petitioner’s special action,” 

noting that the key evidence about Judge Hilliard’s involvement would necessarily come 

from Commissioner French and Hilliard herself. (Id.) 

 On January 13, 2016, Hurles disclosed a second expert witness, Noel Fidel. (Doc. 

173.) Fidel, a former Maricopa County Superior Court and Court of Appeals judge, 

would offer the following opinions: 

1) only in rare and limited instances would judges named as nominal 

respondents in petitions for special actions have been represented by 

counsel to defend the validity of their rulings; 2) for this reason, the Court 

of Appeals in the Hurles special action raised the issue of standing on its 

own motion and ordered supplemental briefing on that issue; and 3) a 

reasonable judge, upon learning that a document defending his or her ruling 

would be filed in the judge’s own name in court, would carefully review the 

document for any inaccuracies or improprieties. 

(Id., Ex. 1.) 

 In opposing Respondents’ argument that the notice was untimely, Hurles states 

that the “catalyst for calling Mr. Fidel” came during the December 16 status conference, 

when the Court, while discussing Hurles’ motion to compel disclosure, suggested that 

Hurles call a witness in lieu of obtaining the requested discovery on the question of the 

rarity of judges being represented by the Attorney General’s office in special actions. 

(Doc. 175 at 3.) Hurles argues that this aspect of Fidel’s testimony is relevant because 

“Hilliard claims that she paid little attention to the attorney general’s filings in the Hurles 

special action because they were commonplace since the attorney general represented 

judges in every special action.” (Id. at 4.) 

 Respondents reply that the disclosure of Fidel remains untimely except with 

respect to testimony about the rarity of a judge appearing in a special action represented 

by counsel. (Doc. 176 at 2, n.1.) The Court agrees. Hurles timely disclosed a judicial 

ethics expert. Fidel was disclosed only in response to the Court’s comments at the status 

conference, which implicated only the first of the proposed areas of Fidel’s testimony. 

 The Court also agrees that Fidel may not offer legal conclusions about the ultimate 

issue in the case; i.e., whether a reasonable judge in Hilliard’s position would have acted 

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 178 Filed 01/26/16 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

27 

28 

as she did. See Nationwide Transp. Fin. v. Cass Info. Sys., Inc., 523 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th 

Cir. 2008) (explaining “an expert witness cannot give an opinion as to her legal 

conclusion, i.e., an opinion on an ultimate issue of law”) (quoting Hangarter v. Provident 

Life & Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1016 (9th Cir. 2004)). 

 Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED denying in part Respondents’ motion to strike (Doc. 174). Fidel 

will be allowed to testify as set forth above. 

 Dated this 26th day of January, 2016. 

Douglas L. Rayes 

United States District Judge

Case 2:00-cv-00118-DLR Document 178 Filed 01/26/16 Page 3 of 3