Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01507/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-01507-0/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

Homer Ray Roseberry, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents. 

No. CV-15-1507-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

DEATH PENALTY CASE 

 Before the Court is Respondents’ motion seeking an order prohibiting members of 

Petitioner’s legal team from contacting the victims in this case and directing that any such 

contact be initiated through counsel for Respondents. (Doc. 8.) 

 In support of their request, Respondents cite provisions of state and federal law, 

including A.R.S. § 13–4433(B), which provides that “[t]he defendant, the defendant’s 

attorney or an agent of the defendant shall only initiate contact with the victim through 

the prosecutor’s office,” and the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), which gives state 

crime victims in federal habeas cases “the right to be treated with fairness and with 

respect for the victim’s dignity and privacy.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). Petitioner opposes 

the motion, arguing that the Court is not bound by A.R.S. § 13–4433(B) and that an order 

precluding contact is not necessary to implement the principles of the CVRA. (Doc. 12.) 

 As discussed at the case management conference on September 15, 2015, it does 

not appear that A.R.S. § 13–4433(B) directly applies to these proceedings. However, the 

Court independently finds that the statute provides a reasonable mechanism for furthering 

Case 2:15-cv-01507-NVW Document 18 Filed 09/17/15 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

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 

the CVRA’s goal of respecting a crime victim’s dignity and privacy without unduly 

burdening Petitioner. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Respondents’ motion for an order precluding Petitioner’s 

legal team from contacting victims (Doc. 8) is granted as follows. No person who is 

defined as a victim in this matter under Arizona law shall be contacted by anyone 

working on behalf of Petitioner unless the victim has consented to such contact. 

Petitioner shall advise Respondents if he wishes to contact a victim. Respondents shall 

then advise the victim, or victim’s counsel, of Petitioner’s request. If a victim does not 

consent, and Petitioner nonetheless believes contact is necessary, Petitioner may file a 

motion with the Court explaining the necessity for such contact. 

 Dated this 16th day of September, 2015. 

Neil V. Wake

United States District Judge

 

Case 2:15-cv-01507-NVW Document 18 Filed 09/17/15 Page 2 of 2