Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-42/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE HOLT,

 Petitioner,

 v.

RON DAVIS, Warden Of San Quentin State

Prison,

 Respondent.

Case No. 1:97-cv-06210-DAD-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER UPON STIPULATION REGARDING

EVIDENTIARY HEARING

(Doc. No. 276)

Before the court is the stipulation of petitioner’s counsel, Robert M. Myers and Assistant 

Federal Defender Jennifer Mann, and respondent’s counsel, Deputy Attorneys General Sean M. 

McCoy and Peter W. Thompson, filed August 28, 2017, to an order regarding presentation of 

evidence and expansion of the record at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 24, 2017. 

The court finds good cause to grant the stipulated request. “On application for a writ of 

habeas corpus, evidence may be taken orally or by deposition, or, in the discretion of the judge, 

by affidavit....” 28 U.S.C. § 2246; Phillips v. Smith, 300 F. Supp. 130, 134 (S.D. Ga. 1969) (use 

of affidavits in habeas corpus applications is within the sound discretion of the district judge). 

“[D]ocumentary evidence, transcripts of proceedings upon arraignment, plea and sentence and a 

transcript of the oral testimony introduced on any previous similar application [for writ of habeas 

corpus] by or in behalf of the same petitioner, shall be admissible in evidence.” (28 U.S.C. § 

2247.) The court “may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 284 Filed 09/06/17 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

relating to the petition.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 

Rule 7. 

Accordingly, the parties having stipulated for purposes of the previously ordered 

evidentiary hearing: 

1. The report of petitioner’s expert, Dr. Pablo Stewart, (Doc. No. 266) will be his 

direct testimony. Respondent may cross-examine Dr. Stewart at the evidentiary 

hearing. After cross-examination, petitioner may redirect, followed by further 

cross-examination by respondent, if desired. The record is expanded with Dr. 

Stewart’s report. 

2. The report of respondent’s expert, Dr. Marvin Firestone (Doc. Nos. 237, 272) will 

be his direct testimony. Petitioner may cross-examine Dr. Firestone at the 

evidentiary hearing. Respondent may redirect, followed by further crossexamination by petitioner, if desired. 

3. The footnote on page 7 of Dr. Firestone’s report, which respondent filed on 

October 1, 2015 (Doc. No. 237), shall not constitute part of his direct testimony.

With this limitation, the record is expanded with Dr. Firestone’s report. 

4. The reporter’s transcripts and the clerk’s transcripts from People v. John Lee Holt, 

Kern County Superior Court Case No. 39910, are deemed part of the record for 

the evidentiary hearing. 

5. Petitioner’s expert, Dr. John Marraccini, will not testify. His declaration (Exhibit 

3 to petitioner’s first state habeas corpus petition, No. S057078) and his Rule 26 

report (Doc. 236-1) will constitute his sole testimony. The record is expanded 

with Dr. Marraccini’s report. 

6. The record is expanded with the transcript of respondent’s deposition of Charles 

Soria, taken October 5, 2007. The deposition is not submitted as a substitute for 

direct examination testimony from either party. Expansion to include the 

deposition does not obligate or preclude respondent from calling Mr. Soria, nor 

does it waive respondent’s right to cross-examine Mr. Soria should petitioner call 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 284 Filed 09/06/17 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

him to testify. 

7. The parties need not redact petitioner’s date of birth and Social Security number 

from any exhibit that is filed or lodged for the evidentiary hearing as these 

identifiers were previously filed as part of the state habeas corpus proceedings 

(California Supreme Court Case No. S057078). 

8. The prosecution provided the note that is reproduced as Exhibit 136 to petitioner’s 

first state habeas corpus petition (No. S057078) to petitioner’s trial counsel as part 

of supplemental discovery in early September 1989. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 5, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 284 Filed 09/06/17 Page 3 of 3