Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_90-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-1_90-cv-00363-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL ALLEN HAMILTON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT J. AYERS, Acting Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison,* )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-90-363-OWW-P

Death Penalty Case

Order Denying Petitioner’s Pro

Se Request for Reconsideration

of May 5, 2005 Order, for

Further Investigation, Evidentiary Hearing and New Counsel 

(Doc Nos. 334 & 335)

Petitioner Michael Allen Hamilton (“Hamilton”) filed a

motion for reconsideration of the May 5, 2005 order denying his

pro se request for further evidentiary hearing and for new

counsel, and filed an amendment to his motion for reconsideration

with additional documents and argument. In his motion for

reconsideration, Hamilton again seeks investigation that he

previously requested: testing of a similar gun and expert

evaluation of the crime scene photos regarding gunshot residue

and blowback, investigation and other discovery relating to the

gun sale from K-Mart, obtaining records and other discovery 

__________________

* Robert J. Ayers is substituted for his predecessor as Acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 25(d).

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 1 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 2

relating to the condition of his truck tire, declarations/

depositions from percipient and expert witnesses regarding

lividity, and declarations/depositions and other discovery of

financial and phone records. Hamilton’s amendment seeks to take

depositions, or testimony at an evidentiary hearing, of law

enforcement officers involved in his trial, of persons involved

with the possession and/or storage of the crime scene vehicle,

and of all counsel, trial, appellate and federal, who have worked

on his case.

Hamilton’s motion for reconsideration

Hamilton asserts the denial of his October, 2004 pro se

request for further evidentiary hearing and for new counsel is in

direct conflict with the authorization to file supplemental

evidence and conduct additional investigation granted at the 2003

evidentiary hearing.

Hamilton takes issue with the finding that his conclusion

regarding blowback (that it must have been on the shooter) is

inconsistent with the trial testimony of criminalist Steven

O’Clair. Hamilton asserts there is no evidence that O’Clair

visited the crime scene or examined other evidence which

contradicts his testimony. Hamilton contends the testimony by

the pathologist Dr. Morrison, as well as prosecution testimony of

the shooting, supports his conclusion. Hamilton also argues that

Detective Salazar’s description of the crime scene supports the

presence of blowback evidence. Hamilton contends that further

investigation and evidentiary hearing is required. Hamilton

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 2 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 3

states that he has not received any report by criminalist Charles

Morton, whom current counsel asserts she contacted about this

issue, and further that Mr. Morton was not provided with the

autopsy report, Dr. Morrison’s testimony, or crime scene reports.

Hamilton takes issue with the finding that inconsistent

reports about the lividity present in Gwen’s body do not support

his claim that he was not responsible for her death. Hamilton

observes that reports from the autopsy do not mention any

lividity. Hamilton asserts that Sgt. Byrd’s estimate of time of

death based on the lividity he observed is consistent with the

timeline Hamilton and his family gave after Gwen’s body was

discovered. Hamilton asserts that the detective’s test of the

flat tire also supports the timeline he and his family gave, and

is inconsistent with the statements and testimonies of Detective

Salazar and Sgt. Byrd.

Hamilton argues with the conclusion that there is no

evidence the phone records, if they do exist, would prove his

ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Hamilton asserts he

gave prior federal counsel Sam Palmer a letter from Hamilton’s

son stating the phone records and other financial records might

have been turned over to Detective Salazar. Even without the

phone records, Hamilton argues that had he been permitted to

investigate, as authorized at the evidentiary hearing, he may

have been able to obtain the needed declarations from recipients

of phone calls about Gwen’s last pregnancy.

Hamilton takes issue with the finding that despite any

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 3 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 4

inconsistencies, Lillian Bardsley’s testimony still implicated

him in the purchase of the shotgun. Hamilton points to numerous

uncertainties in Ms. Bardsley’s identification of him (failure to

pick him out of a photo line-up, description not matching his

physical characteristics), and her in-court identification of

Sharon (not Brenda) Burns and Gilbert Garay. Hamilton argues

that if Ms. Bardsley was mistaken (in her identification of

Sharon Burns), then all her testimony must be stricken as

unreliable. Hamilton denies he purchased the gun, and seeks to

investigate (as he asserts was “authorized” at the evidentiary

hearing) the security tape from the store and a list of all other

shotgun sales the same day to compare to Ms. Bardsley’s

description.

Hamilton argues that if he is allowed to investigate the

fact that he was not the shooter, the testimony of both codefendants would be undermined and must then be stricken as

unreliable and unsupported. Hamilton asserts that he has

presented potentially meritorious evidence which has not been

fully investigated and warrants further investigation. Hamilton

contends he has been denied a full and fair hearing, adequate

investigation, and the right to cross-examine witnesses.

Hamilton’s amendment to his motion for reconsideration

Hamilton submits two main categories of additional evidence

to support his motion:

1. Crime Scene Vehicle

Detectives Salazar and Millard photographed and surveyed the

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 4 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 5

truck for fingerprints before Gwen’s body was removed. Then they

were instructed by Sgt. Byrd to finish processing the vehicle. 

It was stored at Wallace Towing in Porterville. Exs. 1, 2, 42,

43, 49 and 54. Detectives Salazar and Millard went to Wallace

towing later that morning (November 3, 1981) to complete the

processing, taking photos, lifting latent prints and conducting

an air pressure test on the right front tire. Exs. 1 and 50. 

Detectives Salazar and Diaz returned to Wallace Towing on

November 6, 1981, and obtained additional evidence. Exs. 6 and

8.

On November 9, Detective Salazar received a call from Arnold

Wiebe Leasing regarding obtaining possession of the truck, for

which they had a repossession order. Ex. 10. On November 10,

Detective Diaz, pursuant to a call from Kern County Deputy

Sheriff Johnson, contacted Debbie Douglas and took her statement. 

Ex. 44. On November 12, Detective Salazar contacted Ms. Douglas

(aka Howard) regarding her statement and took her to view the

crime scene vehicle on November 16. The vehicle had been turned

over to the legal owner, Arnold Wiebe Leasing. Exs. 15 and 17.

Hamilton was in custody from November 3 to November 5, and

re-arrested on November 17, 1981. Exs. 7, 18A and 38A. On

February 5, 1982, the prosecutor sent a letter to defense counsel

informing him that on February 12 the District Attorney’s Office

would be authorizing the return of the vehicle to its owner,

Arnold Wiebe Leasing, and any further inspection of the vehicle

should be arranged immediately. Ex. 56.

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 5 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 6

Argument

Hamilton asserts that any collection of evidence after the

vehicle was stored at Wallace Towing was contaminated, and that

none of the evidence from the vehicle, either before or after

storage, was turned over to the defense. He claims the defense

had no opportunity to determine whether evidence from the vehicle

could have led to a suspect other than Hamilton. Hamilton also

argues that the vehicle was transferred to Arnold Wiebe Leasing

before November 16, 1981, at a time he was out of custody, not in

February of 1982 when notice of the release was sent to trial

counsel by the prosecutor.

2. Hamilton’s Statement and the News Release

The first law enforcement interview of Hamilton was tape

recorded and conducted by Sgt. Byrd and Detective Montejano

between 2:30 and 3:30 am on November 3, 1981. Exs. 38 and 42.

Following the interview, Detective Montejano prepared a news

release and called it in to the Tulare Co. Sheriff’s Office in

Visalia, concluding his investigation at 4:20 am. Exs. 38 and

40.

Sgt. Lovelady was assigned to interview and conduct a

polygraph examination of Hamilton on November 3, 1981, and was

briefed by Detectives Salazar and Montejano prior to the exam. 

Ex. 51. Detective Montejano assisted Sgt. Lovelady in setting up

the polygraph and explaining the exam to Hamilton. Ex. 38. Sgt.

Lovelady gave Hamilton Miranda warnings prior to the exam. In

response to a question, Hamilton stated that one of the

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 6 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 7

detectives told him Gwen had been stabbed to death, and that he

only saw a bloody wound at the base of her throat and upper

chest, but could not tell what caused the wound. Ex. 51. 

Detective Montejano waited outside while the exam was conducted. 

Exs. 38 and 51.

The exam concluded at 12:15 pm, and Sgt. Lovelady said the

test was negative and untruthful in certain areas. Hamilton

maintained his innocence, and Sgt. Lovelady contacted Sgt. Byrd. 

Detective Montejano lodged Hamilton in the jail about 1:25 pm. 

Ex. 38. Sgt. Lovelady stated Hamilton flunked the exam in two

areas: that Gwen had been killed with a gun (a fact neither he

nor anyone else had been notified of at that time) and that the

weapon used was a shotgun (a fact no one but the investigating

officers and supervisory personnel knew about at that time). 

Hamilton was again given Miranda warnings and was re-interviewed

by Sgt. Byrd and Detective Montejano about the results of the

exam. Hamilton stated he knew who killed Gwen, that it was a

Canadian, that he had a female with him, and as soon as she got

away Hamilton would tell the officers the details. Ex. 42.

During this interview, Hamilton asked to speak to a public

defender. David Liebowitz arrived, and spoke with Hamilton

privately. Hamilton stated Mr. Liebowitz could not answer his

question at the time, but would recontact him that evening about

6:00 pm. Hamilton was advised not to have further conversation

with law enforcement, and was taken back to the jail where he was

booked. Ex. 38.

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 7 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 8

Sgt. Byrd states that about 11:00 am on November 3, he was

requested by Lt. Sgt. McCoy to obtain some photographs of

Hamilton, to place on the news in order to attempt to locate the

person in the green mustang who Hamilton claimed had given him a

ride. Hamilton was at the Porterville substation, so Sgt. Byrd

went there with Detective Salazar and photographed Hamilton with

a Polaroid camera. Hamilton said he wanted to talk to them, and

wanted his attorney present. Hamilton said if he was allowed to

talk to a female, he could clear this whole matter up, that the

suspect involved was a Canadian on his way back to Canada with

the female, and if she could get away then Hamilton could clear

up the whole matter. Mr. Liebowitz was contacted, came over and

talked to Hamilton for a short time, then advised them not to

talk to Hamilton, but that he would talk to him again at 6:00 pm. 

Ex. 42 and 43.

Detective Montejano’s supplemental report on November 3, at

12:15 pm, states he had custody of Hamilton and contacted Sgt.

Byrd about where Hamilton should go. He placed Hamilton in

Detective Sgt. McCoy’s office for a couple of minutes while

searching for Sgt. Byrd, but kept him within eye contact. He

observed Hamilton reading a news release that was on McCoy’s

desk. At about 12:45 pm, Montejano made contact with Sgt. Byrd,

who instructed that Hamilton should be booked at the Tulare

County jail, and would be re-interviewed later. Montejano took

Hamilton downstairs and booked him. Exs. 39 and 40.

On November 4 at 1:00 pm, Detective Salazar and Sgt. Byrd

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 8 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 9

contacted Hamilton at the Porterville substation to take a color

photo. Hamilton stated he wanted to talk and that he wanted his

attorney present, that he could take them to a woman who could

clear this up. Hamilton said he didn’t shoot his wife, but he

knew who did and mentioned something about “he’s on his way to

Canada, is a citizen of Canada, and may kill someone else.” Sgt.

Byrd told Hamilton they couldn’t talk to him without his

attorney. Hamilton continued, saying he flunked the polygraph

because he had read the news release that said Gwen had been

shot, but he knew it was a shotgun anyhow. (Detective Salazar

notes that there had not been a written news release at that time

saying the victim had been shot, only verbal reports.) Detective

Salazar called the Public Defender’s office and left a message

for Mr. Liebowitz to call the Porterville substation. Ex. 3.

Sgt. McCoy states he was contacted by Sgt. Byrd on November

4 at 2:30 pm regarding Hamilton’s assertion that he had found out

about the shooting of his wife from a news release on McCoy’s

desk. Sgt. Byrd related Detective Montejano’s account that

Hamilton was in McCoy’s office and read the news release after he

was given the polygraph. Sgt. McCoy retrieved the news release,

marked it for further identification, and noted that it was

prepared by Sgt. Byrd during the time Hamilton was taking the

polygraph. Ex. 46.

Sgt. Byrd states that he received another call from Hamilton

on November 4 that he wished to talk, and contacted his attorney. 

After Hamilton spoke to his attorney, they were advised he did

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 9 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 10

not wish to talk at this time. Ex. 42. The next day, Sgt. Byrd

states Hamilton again requested to talk, his attorney was

contacted, and he was again advised Hamilton did not wish to make

a statement at that time. Ex. 42.

On November 5, at 3:00 pm, Detective Salazar reported that

Hamilton was released, and he drove him to his mother and

stepfather’s house in Porterville. While on the way, Hamilton

was asked if he knew who killed his wife. Hamilton said he had

to contact somebody first and would tell them in a couple of

days. Detective Salazar gave Hamilton his home phone number and

asked him to call when he was ready to disclose a suspect. 

Ex. 6.

Argument

Hamilton disputes that he was at the Porterville substation

on November 3 at 11:00 am (when Sgt. Byrd reported he and

Detective Salazar went there to take his picture, Ex. 42),

asserting that he was in Visalia taking the polygraph exam that

morning. See Exs. 38 and 51. Hamilton points out that Sgt.

Byrd’s own report contradicts when Hamilton’s statement (that if

he could talk to a female, he could clear the matter up, and that

the female was with a Canadian suspect) was made – stating that

it was made after they took Hamilton’s picture in Porterville,

and then stating it was made after Hamilton took the polygraph

exam in Visalia. Hamilton observes that Detective Salazar also

relates the story about taking Hamilton’s picture in Porterville,

but reports it occurred on November 4 at 1:00 pm, instead of

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 10 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 11

November 3 at 11:00 am. Exs. 3 and 42.

Hamilton contends that Sgt. McCoy’s report that the news

release was prepared by Sgt. Byrd while Hamilton was taking the

polygraph exam, Ex. 46, was an attempt to support the above

(allegedly discredited) reports in Exs. 3 and 42. Detective

Montejano’s testimony contradicts Sgt. McCoy’s report, stating

the news release was made by him and Lt. Gray. RT 7:1700-01. 

Sgt. Byrd’s testimony also states there were two news releases

and Detective Montejano prepared them both.

Hamilton argues that Sgt. McCoy’s report raises serious

questions about who actually authored the news release, and why

the officers went to such lengths to show that Hamilton had not

seen it prior to the polygraph exam. Hamilton asserts their

efforts were made in an attempt to give the jury the impression

that Hamilton knew more about the crime than he had stated. 

Hamilton contends that there is a chain of custody question about

the news release because, although Sgt. McCoy dated and initialed

it on November 4, he did not turn it in as possible evidence

until six days later.

Closing Argument

Hamilton asserts the officers willfully collaborated to

falsify reports in order to fortify the case against him. 

Hamilton contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to

present this evidence in support of his innocence. Hamilton

argues that all appellate counsel have also failed to present

this evidence.

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 11 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 12

Hamilton observes that he has been attempting to obtain a

stay of proceedings and new counsel since December, 2000, on the

basis that both federal habeas counsel have failed to support the

guilt phase claims. Hamilton contends this Court’s direction to

supplement the record, given at the in camera portion of the 2003

evidentiary hearing, included the authorization of additional

investigation. Hamilton presents the exhibits in support of his

motion for reconsideration so that he may be granted a full and

fair review of all the issues relating to the guilt phase.

Hamilton asserts that the prosecutor 1) prevented access to

evidence collected from or related to the crime scene vehicle, 2)

prevented examination by forensic experts of the crime scene

vehicle, 3) prevented confrontation/cross-examination of

prosecution witnesses, 4) allowed release of the crime scene

vehicle prior to the conclusion of the trial.

Requested Relief

Hamilton requests reconsideration of his guilt phase claims

in light of the submitted evidence and argument, and that full

investigation of these matters be allowed. Pending resolution of

the issue of appointment of new counsel, Hamilton requests that

independent counsel be appointed to represent him in the matter

of further investigation and/or evidentiary hearing, and

additionally because Ms. Hart will be a witness in the IAC claim

against her. Hamilton contends that Ms. Hart has known of all

his claims and done little to nothing to assist him in present

these matters in support of his petition, despite adequate

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 12 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 13

opportunity to do so, and so Hamilton asserts he has lost

confidence in Ms. Hart.

If further investigation is granted, Hamilton requests

funding for the following depositions, or alternatively,

testimony at an evidentiary hearing:

1. Prosecutor O’Hara, Tulare Co. Sheriff’s investigator,

Sargents Byrd, Lovelady, McCoy, and Remillard, Detectives

Salazar, Montejano, Brian Johnson, Diaz, and Millard, Deputy

Levario, and Debbie Douglas Howard;

2. Larry Utsler and any other employees/agents of Arnold Wiebe

Leasing who participated in the receipt, transfer and/or

repossession of the crime scene vehicle;

3. The proprietor and any other employees/agents of Wallace

Towing in Porterville responsible for storage of the crime

scene vehicle;

4. Trial counsel Liebowitz, appellate counsel Betty L. Dawson,

John Grele, Gary Sowards, Samuel Palmer (and his associates

Clayton McReynolds and George Dechant), and Katherine Hart.

Hamilton argues this investigation/hearing would be fair and

equal treatment in light of the same consideration afforded the

State in re-opening the evidentiary hearing in 2004.

Conclusion

Hamilton’s requests for investigation exceed the scope of

the Court’s supplemental authorization to expand the record given

at the 2003 evidentiary hearing. None of the evidence or

arguments presented by Hamilton justifies starting the

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 13 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 14

investigation over in this case. 

Hamilton is represented by competent, experienced capital

counsel, and has been capably represented during his appeal. Pro

se filings are not proper when a petitioner is represented by

counsel. Hamilton’s counsel filed the claims which, in her

judgment, she believed should have been raised, and the court has

or will rule on those claims. This filing is an attempt by

Hamilton to make an end-run around his counsel.

Hamilton’s case has been pending in this court for 16 years. 

Over $650,000 has been spent in these habeas proceedings to

investigate and prepare Hamilton’s federal petition, and over

$3,800 of additional investigation was performed after Hamilton’s

return from state exhaustion. Any evidence not presented during

the federal proceedings is either unavailable, would not help, or

is detrimental to Hamilton. Hamilton has not presented any

evidence, nor shown any justification for additional

investigation. The issues Hamilton now raises are not new, but

have been previously raised, but now Hamilton wants to start

over. Two bites at the apple is enough.

The evidence that Hamilton points to, regarding the lack of

or inconsistent reports about, blowback, lividity of the victim,

tire pressure, phone calls about Gwen’s last pregnancy, and the

identity of the purchaser of the shotgun, does not require

additional investigation. None of the questions Hamilton raises

about the evidence from the crime scene vehicle or of any

inconsistencies in the law enforcement reports regarding his oral

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 14 of 15
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

90dp363.ODenyRecond.wpd 15

statement and the news release undermine the verdict.

Hamilton’s request for reconsideration of the May 5, 2005

order is DENIED. Hamilton’s request for additional investigation

and discovery, for evidentiary hearing, and for new federal

habeas counsel, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 28, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

b64h1h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:90-cv-00363-OWW Document 340 Filed 06/29/06 Page 15 of 15