Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05154/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05154-0/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-05-05154 RMW

LJP

E-FILED on 6/18/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

ROBERT PRESTON,

Petitioner,

v.

ROSANNE CAMPBELL, Warden of Mule

Creek State Prison, Ione,

Respondent.

No. C-05-05154 RMW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

[Re Docket No. 1]

Robert Preston 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

Preston was born and raised on a Navajo Indian reservation and performs Navajo "spiritual

work" including religious ceremonies for Native American tribes. In 1992, Preston met Marquel S.,

then twelve years old. He developed a relationship with her family and became their medicine man. 

When Marquel was thirteen, Preston approached Marquel and offered to teach her more about her

Native American heritage. Encouraged by her family, Marquel agreed to become Preston's

Case 5:05-cv-05154-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/18/07 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

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-05-05154 RMW

LJP 2

apprentice. Preston performed an initiation ceremony consisting of several phases, allegedly

including sexual intercourse and sexual assault. Thereafter, Preston had Marquel assist him in

religious ceremonies and allegedly continued to engage in sexual intercourse with her.

On September 24, 2001, Preston was charged with two counts of lewd and lascivious

conduct and four counts of rape. Each count pertained to distinct time periods between August 1,

1995 and December 31, 1997. At trial, the prosecution also introduced testimony by Crystal D.

regarding a sexual battery that occurred in August 1995, to which Preston had pleaded no contest in

a separate proceeding. The jury was instructed that it could use this evidence to infer that the

defendant was likely to or did commit the charged offenses, but that such evidence was "not

sufficient by itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the charged crimes." The

jury returned a guilty verdict on two charges: lewd and lascivious conduct between August 1, 1995

and December 31, 1995, and rape committed between August 1, 1995 and December 31, 1995. The

jury deadlocked on the other charges, which were ultimately dismissed.

Two months after the jury rendered a verdict, the prosecutor informed Preston that, before

testifying, Crystal told the prosecutor that she had been arrested in San Diego for drug possession

but never charged or convicted. The prosecutor had found an entry for an arrest in March 1999 for

possession for sale and/or transportation but did not investigate further. After the trial, Crystal

called the prosecutor's inspector to inform him that there was a warrant for her arrest. Upon calling

the San Diego District Attorney's office, the inspector learned that there were charges pending

against Crystal for possession of marijuana for purposes of sale, possession of methamphetamine,

and possession of narcotic paraphernalia. The trial judge found that the prosecutor had violated his

statutory discovery obligations by failing to investigate upon learning that Crystal had been arrested

for drug possession for sale and not just simple possession, but denied Preston's motion for a new

trial. On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions. The California Supreme

Court denied Preston's petition for review on September 15, 2004. Preston filed his petition for

habeas corpus in this court on December 13, 2005.

Case 5:05-cv-05154-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/18/07 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

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-05-05154 RMW

LJP 3

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 alleges that the prosecutor's

failure to disclose material evidence, i.e. the fact that Crystal had sought police assistance on the

pending drug charges and had lied to the prosecutor about the nature of those charges, deprived him

of his rights under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments because it denied him of his rights

to present exculpatory evidence and to receive a fair trial. Second, he alleges that the jury

instruction regarding Crystal's testimony was unconstitutional as applied and deprived him of his

right to due process. The court will require respondent to show cause why the petition for a writ of

habeas corpus should not be granted.

III. ORDER

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

filed on December 13, 2005, 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

Case 5:05-cv-05154-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/18/07 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

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-05-05154 RMW

LJP 4

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: 6/18/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-05154-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/18/07 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

27

28

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE—No. C-05-05154 RMW

LJP 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Petitioner:

Dennis P. Riordan dennis@riordan-horgan.com

Counsel for Respondent:

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: 6/18/07 /s/ MAG 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-05154-RMW Document 2 Filed 06/18/07 Page 5 of 5