Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-0/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

OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE HOLT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Jill L. Brown, As Warden of )

San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-97-6210-AWI-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT

CONFERENCE

DATE: May 16, 2005

TIME: 3:00 p.m.

COURTROOM THREE

This matter came on for a second Case Management Conference

(hereafter “CMC”) on May 16, 2005 at 3:00 p.m. in Courtroom 3 of the

above-entitled Court, the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, presiding.

Petitioner John Lee Holt (“Holt”) appeared by and through his counsel

of record, Robert M. Myers, of Newman, Aaronson & Vanaman, and

Assistant Federal Defender Jennifer M. Corey. Respondent Jill L.

Brown, as Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”) appeared

by and though her counsel of record, Deputy Attorney General Erik

Brunkal. Also present on behalf of the Warden were Deputy Attorneys

General Patrick J. Whalen and Eric L. Christoffersen. All counsel

entered their appearances telephonically.

The second CMC was scheduled to discuss case management issues

pertaining to the anticipated limited evidentiary hearing ordered on

March 30, 2004. A five month delay in the preparation for the

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 115 Filed 05/23/05 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

OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 2

evidentiary hearing was occasioned by temporary abeyance of federal

proceedings for litigation of a related claim in state court. Holt

since has requested that federal proceedings be reinstituted, and the

Court, finding no impediment under principles of federalism or comity,

granted the request. 

To facilitate discussion of case management issues, the parties

timely filed a Joint Case Management Statement on May 2, 2005. In

addition, Holt filed a proposed case management plan and budget for

this phase of the litigation under seal. The second CMC proceeded

with discussions involving the Court and counsel for both parties.

At the culmination of the joint discussion concerning the case,

counsel for the Warden were excused so the Court could discuss

confidential budgeting matters with counsel for Holt. The Court finds

that Holt has made a proper showing of the need for confidentiality

pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 848(q)(9). A separate order, filed under seal

concurrently herewith discloses the results of the confidential budget

conference.

The Joint Case Management Statement lists witnesses from whom the

parties wish to elicit evidence, proposes a discovery plan, and

describes the manner in which evidence will be presented at the

evidentiary hearing. The number of witnesses proposed, 219 by Holt

and 15 by the Warden, far exceeds the Court’s expectations for the

scope of a limited evidentiary hearing. Moreover, the Court is

concerned that the manner in which the parties propose to present

evidence is more cumbersome than if witnesses simply were to testify

at a court hearing. The parties informed the Court that a large

number of witnesses on Holt’s proposed witness list are employees of

the California Department of Corrections (the “CDC”) who have had

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 115 Filed 05/23/05 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

OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 3

contact with or have been involved in treatment of Holt at both San

Quentin State Prison and Vacaville State Prison. 

Counsel for Holt suggested that according to procedure agreed

upon by the parties in the Joint Case Management Statement, the list

of witnesses and factual issues in dispute can be greatly reduced in

the ensuing weeks by exchanging information between counsel and by

meeting and conferring. The parties propose that within 120 days from

the Court’s order approving a case management plan, a second Joint

Case Management Statement will be filed which will identify factual

issues the parties do not dispute, exhibits the parties agree can be

admitted into evidence, and witnesses from whom the parties wish to

elicit evidence on the limited issues. The Court approves this plan.

The implementation of this plan will involve Holt’s litigation

team drafting a detailed proposed stipulation with supporting

documentation, which will then be provided to counsel for the Warden.

Once the Warden’s litigation team has an opportunity to review the

materials, appropriate modifications can be discussed and

incorporated. The parties anticipate that the process for preparing

the second Joint Case Management Statement will require several weeks

before the final document, the second Joint Case Management Statement,

is filed.

The Court has three concerns regarding the scope of the

evidentiary hearing that shall inform the parties’ preparation of the

second Joint Case Management Statement and the evidentiary hearing in

general. First, since an unspecified number of proposed witnesses are

CDC employees, it is clear that Holt anticipates introducing

significant post-incarceration testimony and documentation. At this

point in the proceedings, however, the Court does not understand the

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 115 Filed 05/23/05 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

OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 4

relevance of post-incarceration testimony. The guilt phase issues

before the Court involve questions about the impartiality of Juror

Billy Ross, Holt’s mental competence at the time of the trial, Holt’s

mental state at the time of the crime, and physical evidence

concerning whether Holt committed a completed rape. Whereas the Court

perceives that post-incarceration evidence of Holt’s mental state and

health conceivably would be relevant as rebuttal evidence were the

Warden to argue that Holt was malingering in his behavior at the time

of the trial, the Court is not aware that a malingering allegation has

been advanced. With respect to post-incarceration evidence in

particular, but generally as well, the parties are expected to make

an offer of proof for evidence intended to be introduced at the

evidentiary hearing. Should either party wish to file any interim

submissions between now and the filing of the second Joint Case

Management Statement, those submissions will be considered by the

Court.

The second concern the Court harbors about the scope of the

evidentiary hearing is the potential for presentation of cumulative

evidence. The Court reminded the parties at the CMC that a

substantial body of testimonial and documentary evidence already has

been reviewed. Accordingly, the Court is not interested in receiving

evidence that duplicates what already has been reviewed in terms of

expert testimony, even though there have been advances in mental

health care and neurological testing since the evidence was originally

submitted. Nor can substantial funding be authorized to redraft

augmented or updated declarations. Rather, the Court is interested

in the parties’ joint efforts to agree on admitting evidence that

already is in the record. Similarly, the Court is not interested in

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 115 Filed 05/23/05 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

OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 5

reviewing multiple family member declarations which recount repetitive

details of abuse inflicted on Holt and his siblings, or the wide

variety of mental illnesses that family members suffer. This

information should be confirmed by the parties in advance of an

evidentiary hearing so that the foundation for expert opinion can be

established.

The third concern focuses on the Warden’s proposed witness list,

in two particulars. First, the Warden has designated Wyatt and Ramona

Ross as well as Juror Billy Ross presumably to testify about the

question of Juror Ross’s impartiality at Holt’s trial. The order

granting an evidentiary hearing, however, limited evidentiary

development for this claim to the fact and the reasons Mr. Ross

delayed in providing the trial court a full explanation of his

dealings with his African-American tenant Mary Callahan, including

possible racial animus, concern for his son Wyatt’s assault

prosecution, and short term memory loss. The Court anticipated that

this evidence would be elicited from Mr. Ross, himself, not from his

son, Wyatt Ross, or his wife, Ramona Ross. The parties should be

mindful of the limitations imposed in the order granting a limited

evidentiary hearing. If there is justification for presentation of

evidence the order did not contemplate, that justification must be

presented to the Court. The second concern arising from the Warden’s

witness list concerns evidence to be developed about whether Holt

committed a completed rape. The Warden has designated both an expert

in sexual assault victims, Dr. William Green, and an unidentified

gynecological expert. Justification for both of these expert

witnesses will need to be expressed in the next Joint Case Management

Statement.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 115 Filed 05/23/05 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

OFollCaseMgmtConf.Hlt.wpd 6

An additional factor that will have an impact on evidentiary

hearing preparation also was discussed, and that is the impending

departure of Deputy Attorney General Erik Brunkal from the Office of

the Attorney General. Mr. Brunkal reported to the Court, however,

that replacement counsel for the case will be assigned within the next

week. While Holt’s litigation team prepares the materials to be

turned over to the Warden’s counsel for review, the newly assigned

deputy attorney general will have an opportunity to read relevant

portions of the file before evaluating the materials provided by

Holt’s counsel. Thus, no delay is anticipated on account of Mr.

Brunkal’s departure.

In light of the foregoing, the parties are directed to meet and

confer to narrow the scope of the factual disputes in this case, and

to file a second Joint Case Management Statement by September 19,

2005. Thereafter, on September 26, 2005 at 3:00 p.m., the Court will

conduct a third telephonic CMC, with counsel for Holt responsible for

arranging and initiating the call. If the parties believe an interim

telephonic conference would facilitate any difficulties encountered,

the Court will be available on reasonable notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: May 23, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii

United States District Judge

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 115 Filed 05/23/05 Page 6 of 6