Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02416/USCOURTS-caed-2_99-cv-02416-11/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

Joint Proposed Settled Statement 1 Barnett v. Ayers, CIV S 99-2416 DFL CMK P

ROBERT D. BACON, State Bar No. 73297

484 Lake Park Avenue, PMB 110

Oakland, California 94610

(510) 834-6219; Facsimile (510) 444-6861

E-mail: bacon2254@aol.com

DANIEL J. BRODERICK, State Bar No. 89424

Federal Defender

JENNIFER M. COREY, State Bar No. 215737

Assistant Federal Defender

801 I Street, 3d Floor

Sacramento, California 95814

(916) 498-6666; Facsimile (916) 498-6656

Attorneys for Petitioner

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

TAMI M. WARWICK, State Bar No. 183925

Deputy Attorney General

1300 I Street, Suite 125

P.O. Box 944255

Sacramento, California 94244-2550

Telephone (916) 445-2394

(Fax) (916) 324-2960

E-mail: Tami.Warwick@doj.ca.gov

Attorneys for Respondent

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEE MAX BARNETT, )

)

Petitioner, )

 )

vs. )

 )

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Acting Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

 )

Respondent. )

___________________________________)

No. CIV S 99-2416 DFL CMK P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

JOINT SETTLED STATEMENT

The parties submit the following proposed settled statement to memorialize what took

place at the September 6, 2006, hearing in this matter. Due to an equipment malfunction, the

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 210 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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

Joint Proposed Settled Statement 2 Barnett v. Ayers, CIV S 99-2416 DFL CMK P

hearing was not recorded. This statement is not intended to be a transcript of the proceedings,

but only to highlight the issues discussed.

The Court advised Petitioner’s counsel that it had received a lengthy pro se pleading

from Petitioner. The Court stated that he agreed with Magistrate Judge Nowinski and the

California Supreme Court – that pleadings and papers should be filed by counsel.

 The Court suggested that the parties meet and confer to discuss issues of exhaustion,

relation back and procedural default pertaining to Petitioner’s third amended habeas corpus

petition. The parties agreed that a meet-and-confer would be productive.

Petitioner’s counsel advised the Court that they would be filing a motion to declare that

the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) should not apply to his petition. 

Respondent’s counsel requested that such motion be resolved early, before procedural issues. 

The Court set a deadline of November 3, 2006, for Petitioner to file his motion, and a deadline of

January 5, 2007, for Respondent to file an opposition. 

The Court set a deadline of November 3, 2006, by which the parties will meet and confer

to discuss exhaustion, relation back, and procedural default.

Petitioner’s counsel asked the Court if it would consider bifurcating the issues, so that the

guilt-innocence claims would be resolved first, before the penalty phase claims. Petitioner’s

counsel advised that she had raised the issue with Respondent’s counsel before the hearing. 

Respondent’s counsel replied that Respondent was opposed to the idea because it would delay

ultimate resolution of the litigation. If Petitioner prevailed on a guilt-innocence claim in the

district court, but that determination was reversed on appeal, the parties would then have to

return to the district court to litigate the penalty phase claims. The Court suggested that the

parties discuss bifurcation in the meet-and-confer session.

Respondent’s counsel proposed that Respondent might want to file a summary judgment

motion on purely legal claims. Respondent felt such a motion might expedite the litigation. 

Petitioner’s counsel’s initial impression was negative because most of the claims, particularly the

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 210 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Joint Proposed Settled Statement 3 Barnett v. Ayers, CIV S 99-2416 DFL CMK P

ineffective assistance of counsel claims, involved cumulative error. The Court suggested that the

parties discuss summary judgment in the meet-and-confer session.

Respondent’s counsel raised the issue of Mr. Barnett’s competency, based on a letter that

Mr. Barnett had written to the Court. Respondent was concerned that competency be addressed

now, not later, perhaps on the eve of an evidentiary hearing, causing delay. Petitioner’s counsel

responded that they did not intend to raise the issue of Mr. Barnett’s competency at this time,

and that they did not believe that issues concerning Mr. Barnett’s competency would delay the

proceedings. Petitioner’s counsel stated that Mr. Barnett was interested in expediting, not

delaying, the proceedings. Counsel for the parties discussed what happened with the

competency proceedings in the case of Stanley v. Ayers, CIV S-1500 FCD GGH P; there was

disagreement about what had happened in that case.

The Court set a deadline of December 1, 2006, for the parties to submit a joint statement

regarding exhaustion, timeliness, and procedural default as to the claims in the third amended

habeas corpus petition. The Court scheduled a telephonic status conference for Wednesday,

December 6, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

Submitted December 1, 2006. 

ROBERT D. BACON

DANIEL J. BRODERICK

Federal Defender

/s/ Jennifer M. Corey 

JENNIFER M. COREY

Assistant Federal Defender

Attorneys for Petitioner

BILL LOCKYER

Attorney General of the State of California

/s/ Tami M. Warwick 

TAMI M. WARWICK

Deputy Attorney General

Attorneys for Respondent

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 210 Filed 12/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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

Joint Proposed Settled Statement 4 Barnett v. Ayers, CIV S 99-2416 DFL CMK P

It is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Settled Statement is APPROVED.

DATED: December 6, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:99-cv-02416-DJC-DMC Document 210 Filed 12/07/06 Page 4 of 4