Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04143/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04143-0/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)

---

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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-06-4143 RMW

CYY

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 6/8/08

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION

RICHARD GALVAN,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES YATES, Warden, 

Pleasant Valley State Prison,

Respondent.

No. C-06-4143 RMW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re Docket No. 1]

Richard Galvan petitions for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court

will require respondent to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2000, 14-year-old Lucy Doe went to a party with her older sister, Maria. At

the party, Lucy met Jose Mancera, Hijinio Haro and 15-year old petitioner Richard Galvan, among

15 or 20 people who were there. From approximately 9:30 p.m. through 11:30 p.m., Lucy smoked

marijuana. Petitioner tried "to come on to" Lucy twice, but she rejected him and pushed him away. 

Near midnight, Lucy felt "high" from the marijuana and began drinking alcohol. She could recall

she had two shots of Jack Daniels and a swig of beer at the party.

Case 5:06-cv-04143-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/08/08 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-06-4143 RMW

CYY 2

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

At about 1:30 a.m. on October 14, 2000, Brian Wilde heard moaning from the area of some

bushes in a park when he was waiting for his girlfriend. Wilde described the moaning as loud,

unpleasant and "sexual", as if it was from a woman in pain. As he approached the bushes, a group of

Hispanic males got up and ran away. He discovered Lucy lying on the ground with no clothing on. 

Wilde's girlfriend, Christina Benson, approached and tried to ask Lucy questions and tap her face,

but Lucy responded with more moans, trying to open her eyes and sit up. 

Petitioner testified that early in the evening, Lucy, Mancera, petitioner and some others left

the party and went to the park across the street. When Mancera walked Lucy into the bushes, Lucy

showed no hesitation. In the bushes, Lucy was moaning, but she did not appear to be in distress. 

Some time later Mancera came out and told petitioner to "go for it." When petitioner went into the

bushes, Lucy was sitting up, with her pants around her ankles. Petitioner talked to Lucy, making

comments, and kissed her. He believed Lucy consented to have sex with him because she kissed

him back and lay down. Even when he touched her breast and her pelvic area, Lucy did not show

any negative response. However, when they began to have sex, petitioner's penis came out because

he was not erect. Petitioner testified that he "tapped" Lucy because he was embarrassed by his lack

of an erection when the others were around. 

Lucy testified that she remembered nothing that happened after she drank the alcohol, or the

events in the bushes. She claimed that she did not intend to have sex, or oral or digital penetration

with either Mancera or petitioner. Further, she did not recall agreeing to go to the park, going to the

park, or speaking with Mancera or petitioner. She did not know whether or not she agreed to have

sex with Mancera or petitioner. Also, she could not recall whether she spoke to petitioner about sex,

or whether she consented to any sexual conduct. 

Witness Haro testified Lucy drank most of a bottle of Jack Daniels at the party, and drank

more in the park. Haro testified that he heard Mancera tell the group that Lucy wanted to have sex

with them, and that he saw Lucy have sex with Mancera and petitioner. Haro's trial testimony

differed from the statement he gave to the police in important respects. Haro gave a statement to the

police that he saw petitioner tell Lucy to "shut up" and slap her face even though Lucy appeared to

be "knocked out" during sex, and also saw Mancera put his penis in Lucy's mouth briefly. However,

Case 5:06-cv-04143-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/08/08 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-06-4143 RMW

CYY 3

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

his trial testimony was that Lucy consented to sex and was not so drunk, and he did not see

petitioner hit or slap Lucy. 

By motion, petitioner sought to introduce evidence of Lucy's recent sexual conduct. 

Specifically, there was evidence that Lucy had consensual sexual relationships while drinking, in the

same park location, with Haro and Mancera the week before the charged incident. The district

attorney argued that under Evidence Code section 1103, the sex with Haro was not relevant, and the

sex with Mancera was not relevant to petitioner's case because it was not sex with petitioner. The

prosecution also asked the court to exclude evidence that Lucy possessed several condoms and gave

her sister condoms on the night of the incident. Defense counsel argued that the evidence of Lucy's

recent sexual conduct was relevant to demonstrate the element of consent with Mancera, which,

according to defense counsel, would have been critically relevant to Lucy's consent to have sex with

petitioner. In addition, to the extent Lucy denied at trial that she intended to have sex with Mancera

or the others, defense counsel asserted that the evidence would serve to attack Lucy's credibility. 

Nonetheless, the trial court granted the prosecution's motion to exclude the evidence on the grounds

that "the probative value is outweighed by the prejudicial effect" and the evidence was "incidental,

collateral" and "irrelevant." The defense counsel also challenged the trial court's exclusion of Haro's

sexual conduct with Lucy a week before the charged offense on the ground that the Sixth and

Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the accused's right to conduct cross-examination at trial.

Petitioner was charged with two counts of forcible rape in concert, forcible sexual

penetration in concert, forcible oral copulation in concert, rape by an intoxicating substance, sexual

penetration by an intoxicating substance, with two special enhancement allegations. The jury found

petitioner guilty on all counts except for one rape count and the charge of forcible sexual penetration

in concert (but the jury found petitioner guilty of the lesser offense of assault with intent to commit

forcible sexual penetration). On October 22, 2003, after denying petitioner's motion for a new trial,

the court sentenced petitioner to a total of 16 years in prison. On April 13, 2005, the California

Court of Appeal, Sixth District affirmed petitioner's convictions and the exclusion of the evidence in

an unpublished opinion on April 13, 2005. The California Supreme Court denied petitioner's

Case 5:06-cv-04143-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/08/08 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-06-4143 RMW

CYY 4

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

petition for review on July 13, 2005. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this

court on July 3, 2006.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus on "behalf of a person in

custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a); Rose v. Hodges,

423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975). A district court shall "award the writ or issue an order directing the

respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application

that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

B. Petitioner’s Claims

Petitioner asserts two grounds for federal habeas relief. First, he claims that the trial court's

exclusion of the evidence of Lucy's alleged recent sex Mancera and Haro at the same location, and

Lucy's possession and distribution of condoms on the night of the events was prejudicial and

deprived petitioner of his due process rights. Specifically, under Evidence Code section 1103(c),

although evidence of Lucy's sexual conduct with others is not admissible to prove her consent,

petitioner contends that this section does not bar evidence of sexual conduct of the victim to attack

her credibility. Further, petitioner contends that because whether Lucy's sexual acts with Mancera

were consensual is relevant to the crimes of which petitioner was convicted, evidence of prior sexual

acts with Mancera was admissible under section 1103. Petitioner also claims he was entitled to

introduce evidence that Lucy possessed and distributed condoms on the night of the incident,

because it could logically support the inference that the sex acts with petitioner were not against her

will. 

Second, petitioner claims that the deprivation of petitioner's right to cross-examine Haro was

a Constitutional error because the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right of an

accused to confront witnesses against him. Petitioner contends that had defense counsel been

permitted to conduct a cross-examination of Haro, a reasonable jury might have received a different

Case 5:06-cv-04143-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/08/08 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-06-4143 RMW

CYY 5

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

impression of Haro's credibility. The court will require respondent to show cause why the petition

for a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted on either of these two grounds. 

III. ORDER

Respondent is ordered to show cause why petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus,

filed on July 3, 2006, should not be granted. 

 1. The clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order and the petition and all attachments thereto

upon the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, the Attorney General of the State of

California. 

 2. Respondent shall file with the court, within sixty days of the issuance of this order, an answer

conforming in all respects to Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, showing

cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file with the

answer a copy of all portions of the state record that have been transcribed previously and

that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition. If petitioner

wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse within thirty days of the

filing of the answer.

 3. Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an answer, as set

forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases

within sixty days of the issuance of this order. If respondent files such a motion, petitioner

shall file with the court an opposition or a statement of non-opposition within thirty days of

the filing of the motion, and respondent shall file with the court a reply within fifteen days of

the filing of any opposition.

DATED: 6/6/08

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04143-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/08/08 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

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-06-4143 RMW

CYY 6

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Dennis P. Riordan dennis@riordan-horgan.com

Counsel for Respondent:

No appearance

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 6/8/08 /s/ MAG 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-04143-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/08/08 Page 6 of 6