Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_00-cv-00050/USCOURTS-azd-4_00-cv-00050-0/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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Thomas Kemp, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-00-50-TUC-FRZ

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER RE: 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider the Court’s September

17, 2007 Order (Dkt. 112), to the extent it denied discovery and dismissed Claims 3 and 12.

Generally, motions to reconsider are appropriate only if the Court “(1) is presented with

newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly

unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J,

Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Petitioner

contends the denial of discovery was clear error and reconsideration is necessary to prevent

a manifest injustice.

The Court dismissed Claims 3 and 12, in part, because it determined that the

interactions between Petitioner and Officers Compton and Jackson did not constitute

interrogation and was not designed to deliberately elicit incriminating statements. Petitioner

contends that the discovery he seeks will help him prove that the officers acted intentionally

Case 4:00-cv-00050-FRZ Document 114 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 3
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 -

to elicit incriminating statements and, therefore, it was interrogation. Specifically, Petitioner

seeks pattern and practice evidence that Pima County correctional officers were trained to

elicit incriminating statements and memorialize them for the prosecutors.

 Petitioner contends that, pursuant to Bracy, he need only have a plausible theory to

establish good cause for discovery. In Bracy, although the petitioner was asserting a

“theory” of corruption, the judge at issue had been convicted of taking bribes in other cases,

the trial lawyer was part of a law practice that had engaged in corrupt behavior, and the

schedule of Petitioner’s trial and the short time in which the appointed attorney agreed to

prepare for the trial were supportive of Petitioner’s corruption theory. Bracy v. Gramley, 520

U.S. 899, 907-08 (1997). In contrast, Petitioner does not allege that Officers Compton and

Jackson have a pattern of improper interrogation or that any discovery will demonstrate such

a pattern. In fact, Officer Jackson testified that he did not report his interaction with

Petitioner until weeks later when Officer Compton informed him that he had reported a

similar statement from Petitioner. (RT 6/2/93 at 168-69.) This undermines Petitioner’s

theory that the officers were trained to memorialize and report incriminating statements. 

Further, the only examples upon which Petitioner relies to support his allegations are

cases in which other corrections officers overhead and reported incriminating statements by

inmates. Listening to a conversation, without more, is not unconstitutional. See Rhode

Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 300 (1980) (noting that not all custodial statements are

inadmissable because “[v]olunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth

Amendment”); Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 459 (1986) (finding that the Sixth

Amendment is only violated by action, which must go beyond just listening). 

Petitioner’s case is significantly different than the facts of Bracy because Petitioner

has no support for his theory that correctional officers were trained to intentionally elicit

incriminating statements or that it happened in his case. 

Therefore, there is no good cause for discovery. Petitioner has not demonstrated clear

error in the Court’s order.

Accordingly,

Case 4:00-cv-00050-FRZ Document 114 Filed 12/19/07 Page 2 of 3
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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. 113) is

DENIED.

DATED this 19th day of December, 2007.

Case 4:00-cv-00050-FRZ Document 114 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3