Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_90-cv-00478/USCOURTS-caed-1_90-cv-00478-3/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

1 At the time the motion was filed the warden of San Quentin

State Prison was Jill L. Brown. By operation of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 25(d), J.D. Stokes has been substituted in Ms. Brown place

as Respondent in this action.

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSTANTINO CARRERA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

J. D. STOKES, As Acting Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-90-478-AWI-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S

REQUEST TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY

By motion filed July 5, 2005, Petitioner Constantino Carrera

(“Carrera”) requested leave of Court to propound document production

requests and serve third-party subpoenas. On July 12, 2005, the Court

filed an order partially denying Carrera’s request as to three of the

seven categories of the proposed discovery described. The July 12,

2005 order further set a due date for any opposition to be filed by

Respondent J.D. Stokes, As Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison

(the “Warden”)1 as to the remaining three categories. The Warden

filed his opposition brief on August 2, 2005. The Court grants

authorization for Carrera to propound discovery as set forth in this

Order.

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 1 of 9
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 Amendments to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases became

effective December 1, 2004. Both parties cited the predecessor of

this rule in their briefs.

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 2

I. Standard for Granting Discovery.

The parties do not disagree that a habeas petitioner must show

“good cause” before a district court may authorize discovery. Rule

6(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases provides in pertinent

part: “A judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct

discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may limit the

extent of discovery.”2 Good cause for conducting discovery exists

“where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe

that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to

demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Bracy v. Gramley,

520 U.S. 889, 908-09 (1997) (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286,

299 (1969).

II. Categories of Documents Sought.

The four remaining categories of proposed discovery include

documents relative to plea negotiations between law enforcement and

others involved or thought to be involved in the crimes, the

prosecutor’s notes regarding jury selection, training materials of the

Kern County District Attorney’s Office regarding jury selection, and

documents disclosing Carrera’s mental health and/or drug abuse. Each

category is evaluated to determine Carrera’s entitlement to discovery

under the applicable standard.

A. Documents Relating to Plea Bargain Negotiations with Teresa

Fout, Miguel Santana, and Ramiro Ruiz-Gonzales.

Carrera’s description of the documents he seeks in this category

is as follows:

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 2 of 9
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 Teresa Fout was 14 years old at the time of Carrera’s and

Ruiz’s arrests. Ruiz was 17 years old. Santana’s connection to the

crime was as an accessory after the fact.

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 3

All documents in the possession of the Kern County District

Attorney’s Office, including prosecutor’s files in this

case, and in the possession of the Kern County Sheriff’s

Office, regarding all communications and plea negotiations

between them (and their agents and employees) and Teresa

Fout or Mike Santana or Ramiro Ruiz and their attorneys

during the 14 days after Petitioner’s arrest; all documents

regarding the prosecution’s decision to grant immunity,

whether formal or informal, to Teresa Fout and Mike

Santana; and all documents regarding the prosecution’s

decision to charge Petitioner, but not Ramiro Ruiz or

Teresa Fout or Mike Santana, with special circumstances

and/or the death penalty.

Carrera argues that because he was denied conflict-free counsel

for the first two weeks following his arrest, he did not have an

opportunity to negotiate a plea agreement similar to the plea

agreements negotiated on behalf of Teresa Fout, Miguel Santana, and

co-perpetrator Ramiro Ruiz-Gonzales (“Ruiz”). The purpose of the

requested documents is to establish prejudice for the claim that the

trial court violated its duty to timely provide Carrera with appointed

counsel.

The Warden responds that good cause for the requested documents

is not established because even if Carrera can show a constitutional

violation due to delayed appointment of conflict-free counsel, a

proposition which the Warden does not concede, he (Carrera) cannot

establish that the prosecutor’s failure to offer him a plea agreement

resulted from that delay. The Warden points out that on the merits

of the claim, the more likely reason Carrera was not offered a plea

agreement is that he was the only adult directly implicated in the

murder-robbery.3 The Warden also supplies a declaration of the trial

prosecutor, Mr. Michael Vendrasco, that he has no records responsive

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 3 of 9
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

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 4

to Carrera’s request. An additional form declaration of Harriet Tracy

from the Kern County Sheriff’s Office is appended in which Ms. Tracy

states the Sheriff’s Office also has no records pertaining to

Carrera’s case.

Carrera is entitled to attempt to prove prejudice for his claim

of denial of counsel. Although the argument that the prosecutor’s

failure to offer a plea agreement had nothing to do with Carrera’s

lack of representation may be a compelling argument when the Court

addresses the merits of the claim, it would not be proper for the

Court to render such a conclusion at this stage of the proceedings.

Similarly, the fact Mr. Vendrasco’s and Ms. Tracy’s declarations

disavow the existence of any documents responsive to Carrera’s sought

after discovery does not address the issue entitlement.

Good cause exists for Carrera to seek documents relating to plea

negotiations with Teresa Fout, Miguel Santana, and Ruiz. 

B. The Prosecutor’s Notes Regarding Reasons for Exercising

Peremptory Challenges to Jurors with Hispanic Surnames.

Carrera’s description of the documents he seeks in this category

is as follows:

All documents in the prosecutor’s trial file which contain

notes, comments, or reasons for the prosecutor’s decision

during voir dire to peremptorily challenge prospective

jurors Mary Garcia, Manuel Estrada, Maria Carillo, Petra

Celedon, Lawrence Martinez and Alice Hernandez.

The basis for this request is that Mr. Vendrasco earlier reported

he does not remember the reasons for striking the named jurors and

thus, written notes would shed significant light on his credibility

and whether the strikes were in fact racially based. The purpose of

the evidence is to establish prejudice for the ineffective assistance

of counsel claim asserted against Carrera’s trial counsel for her

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 4 of 9
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

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 5

failure to object to Mr. Vendrasco’s allegedly racially motivated jury

strikes.

The Warden argues that good cause for the requested discovery

does not exist because the underlying claim of ineffective assistance

of counsel is without merit, as a matter of law. The Warden’s

reasoning is that the ineffective assistance of counsel challenge

relates to defense counsel’s failure to interpose an objection to Mr.

Vendrasco’s peremptory challenges to Hispanic jurors. He continues,

there is no basis for a finding of incompetent representation on

account of this failure because Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79

(1986), the case on which trial counsel’s alleged incompetence is

predicated, was not decided until three years after Carrera’s trial

took place. Thus, the argument continues, it cannot be that a defense

attorney is ineffective for failing to anticipate a change in the law.

The Warden also supplies a declaration of the trial prosecutor, Mr.

Vendrasco, that he has no records responsive to Carrera’s request.

Carrera argues in his brief supporting the petition that although

Batson was decided after Carrera’s trial, his conviction was not final

until 1990, and therefore the holding of Batson still applies to his

habeas petition. He relies on Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314,

322 (1987), as the foundation for this principle. While Carrera’s

position would be correct were the claim at issue truly a Batson

claim, the Court remains dubious about application of Griffith to this

case because Carrera’s claim is an ineffective assistance of counsel

claim predicated on the Batson holding, not a free-standing Batson

claim. The Warden’s argument thus carries more weight at first blush.

On further reflection, however, a flaw in the argument is exposed.

That is, although Batson was decided three years after the completion

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 5 of 9
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

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 6

Carrera’s trial, the case upon which Batson was derived, Swain v.

Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965), was decided nearly two decades earlier.

Further, the California rule invalidating racially motivated

peremptory challenges in People v. Wheeler, 22 Cal. 3d 258 (1978),

predates Carrera’s trial by five years.

The Court therefore finds that Carrera is entitled to pursue his

ineffective counsel claim based trial counsel’s failure to object to

allegedly discriminatory peremptory challenges advanced by the

prosecutor. Good cause for discovery of prosecutorial notes so that

Carrera can prove the prejudice prong of his ineffective counsel claim

is established. The Court further notes that the fact of Mr.

Vendrasco’s declaration disavowing the existence of any documents

responsive to Carrera’s request does not address the issue

entitlement, and for purposes of this motion is discounted.

C. District Attorney Training Material Relative to Peremptory

Challenges in Jury Selection.

Carrera’s description of the documents he seeks in this category

is as follows:

All educational and training materials possessed and/or

utilized by the Kern County District Attorney’s Office from

1973 to 1983 on the topics of peremptory challenges to

jurors and peremptory challenges to minority jurors.

In his points and authorities supporting the discovery

authorization request, Carrera states that District Attorney training

materials of the type requested are relevant in evaluating a Batson

claim, as instructed in Miller-El v. Dretke, ___ U.S. ___, ___125 S.

Ct. 2317, 2339-40 (2005).

The Warden’s objection to this category of documents tracks his

objection to discovery of Mr. Vendrasco’s notes regarding peremptory

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 6 of 9
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

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 7

challenges to potential jurors with Hispanic surnames, namely that the

claim must fall as a matter of law. He further argues that even were

the claim cognizable, no evidence is offered that training materials,

if any existed, were utilized in conjunction with his trial. The

declaration of Mr. Vendrasco, that he has no records responsive to

Carrera’s request, also is proffered in opposition to this discovery

category.

The Court already has determined that Carrera’s showing of good

cause is sufficient to permit development of his ineffective counsel

claim for trial counsel’s failure to object to allegedly improper

peremptory challenges. Training manuals of the type described in

Miller-El would be relevant to the prejudice prong and Carrera is

entitled to discovery of those manuals. As with the previous

discovery category, the Court further notes fact of Mr. Vendrasco’s

declaration disavowing the existence of any documents responsive to

Carrera’s request does not address the issue entitlement and thus is

discounted.

D. Documents Disclosing Carrera’s Mental Health and/or Drug

Abuse.

Carrera’s description of the documents he seeks in this category

is as follows:

All documents and files in the possession of the Kern

County District Attorney’s Office, Kern County Sheriff’s

Office, or any Kern County medical or mental health

department or facility regarding Petitioner’s mental health

in the years 1982 and 1983, including, but not limited to,

all records and results of any drug testing performed on

Petitioner at any time during that subject period, and all

notes and reports of any experts who examined or analyzed

Petitioner’s mental health or drug use.

The basis for discovery of mental health and or drug use/abuse

documentation is to support Carrera’s contention that trial counsel

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 7 of 9
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

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 8

was constitutionally incompetent for her failure to develop a mental

defense. Evidence responsive to this request would assist Carrera’s

proof of the prejudice prong.

The Warden maintains Carrera cannot establish the requisite

showing of good cause for these documents. This follows, he argues,

because Carrera’s post-crime conduct has made a mental defense

implausible and thus trial counsel’s failure to raise one could not

have been prejudicial. Specifically, the Warden points out that

Carrera intentionally and knowingly helped destroy evidence of the

murders, tried to silence witnesses, and insisted he was not present

at the scene of the crime.

In evaluating these arguments, the Court first observes that the

contention Carrera “tried to silence witnesses” appears to be an

overstatement of the record. While the Court is aware evidence in the

record demonstrates Carrera attempted to influence the testimony of

friends and family members about his and Teresa Fout’s relative

culpability and that he apparently was involved in a jail altercation

with Teresa’s brother (who also was incarcerated in the Kern County

Jail at the time of Carrera’s incarceration, but for unrelated

charges), evidence of attempts to “silence witnesses,” as in

threatening or killing them, has escaped the Court’s notice. Second

although the Court acknowledges that post-crime conduct can be

considered in evaluating a defendant’s consciousness of guilt, the

fact that Carrera tried to deflect responsibility for his part in the

crimes after he was apprehended is not conclusive that he may not have

suffered some sort of mental disability negating the mens rea for

robbery.

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 8 of 9
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

90dp00478.OGrantingDisco.Car.wpd 9

Carrera has established good cause for purposes of discovering

institutional records pertaining to his mental illnesses or drug

abuse. The fact of Mr. Vendrasco’s and Ms. Tracy’s declarations

disavowing the existence of any documents responsive to this discovery

category does not address the issue entitlement.

III. Order.

For each of the four categories of documents described above,

Carrera has shown the requisite good cause to conduct discovery. He

my serve a document production request on the Warden in conformance

with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 and third-party subpoenas on

the non-party witnesses listed in conformance with Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 34 and 45.

In light of Mr. Vendrasco’s declaration that there are no

documents in the files of the District Attorney’s Office responsive

to any of the discovery requests, it is unclear whether serving a

third-party subpoena on the Kern County District Attorney’s Office

will serve any useful purpose. The declaration of Harriet Tracy from

the Kern County Sheriff’s Office stating the absence of records

pertaining to Carrera’s case yields a similar conclusion regarding a

third-party subpoena directed to the Sheriff’s Office. The Court will

leave it to Carrera’s litigation team to determine the appropriate

course of action. The Court observes that no declaration from any

County mental institution has been provided, so no impediment in that

regard exists.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

c508d4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:90-cv-00478-AWI Document 262 Filed 08/19/05 Page 9 of 9