Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00254/USCOURTS-caed-2_93-cv-00254-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY ROBERTS, No. CIV S-93-0254 GEB DAD DP

Petitioner,

v. DISCOVERY ORDER

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Respondents.

 /

This matter is before the court on petitioner’s motion for

discovery and amended supplementary motion for discovery. At the

most recent hearing held on March 11, 2005, Robert Bloom and Claudia

J. Robinson appeared on behalf of petitioner. Glenn R. Pruden

appeared on behalf of respondent.

By way of background, in his second amended petition

pending before the court petitioner presents fifty-nine claims for

relief. The first claim, and what appears to be at least one of the

cornerstones of the petition, is that monumental prosecutorial

misconduct pervaded the investigation and prosecution of petitioner

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 1 of 86
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

1 The discovery order issued on July 28, 1995 was stayed by the

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an order issued March 3, 1998

this court denied petitioner’s motion seeking the reinstatement of

that discovery order in part because of intervening decisions

defining the contours of permissible discovery in the context of

federal habeas proceedings.

2

for a murder of which he is factually innocent. In addition,

petitioner seeks relief based upon a number of alleged erroneous

rulings by the state trial court, ineffective assistance of trial

counsel, jury instruction error, juror misconduct, trial court

misconduct, penalty phase error, ineffective assistance of appellate

counsel and cumulative error among other claims. 

Petitioner’s discovery request pending before this court is

voluminous and set out in minute detail. Through more than ninetyfour specific requests petitioner seeks broad discovery. In some

instances, those requests seek an order requiring respondent to

assemble lists and other data that do not currently appear to exist

or to respond to petitioner’s questions which are presented in

interrogatory-like form. Despite the detailed nature of those

requests, counsel for petitioner in many instances supports those

requests by merely stating that the discovery sought relates to his

prosecutorial misconduct claim and that similar discovery requests

were granted by Magistrate Judge Moulds in an order filed on July 28,

1995.1 

Counsel for respondent has, in large part, responded to

petitioner’s discovery requests by representing that, without waiving

/////

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 86
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

2 Respondent’s counsel thus appears somewhat reluctant to

commit as to whether any additional documents responsive to

petitioner’s discovery requests exist and have been produced. This

hesitancy may reflect current counsel’s concern that he has relied

upon the representations of his various predecessors who have worked

on this case. In any event, the court has been forced to construe

the responses to discovery requests where necessary and respondent’s

counsel will be held to the responses as construed. 

3 Petitioner’s counsel have repeatedly made clear that they are

not suggesting that current counsel for respondent is responsible for

any act of alleged misconduct. 

3

objection, to the extent the requested discovery exists2 it has

already been provided to petitioner’s counsel either in this action

or in the state habeas proceedings. 

 In general, petitioner replies that responsive documents

were not produced in the state habeas proceedings and because he

believes prosecutorial misconduct has occurred throughout the state

court trial and habeas proceedings, respondent’s representations

cannot be accepted at face value in any event.3 

In an attempt to break this impasse over whether

petitioner’s counsel has in fact received certain documents,

respondent’s counsel has filed with the court four bound volumes of

exhibits consisting of documents produced to petitioner in the state

habeas proceedings. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Exs. 1-

16.) Unfortunately, respondent refers to the pages of those exhibits

only in broad generalities rather than focusing on petitioner’s

specific requests. Thus, both parties have left it to the court to

sift through petitioner’s lengthy, detailed requests and respondent’s

voluminous exhibits in an attempt to determine whether there is a

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 3 of 86
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

4

legitimate dispute with respect to each of the over ninety-four

discovery requests posed. 

Below the court will first examine the legal standards

governing discovery in this federal habeas action. The court will

then turn to address each of petitioner’s specific discovery

requests.

DISCOVERY STANDARDS

The parties in a habeas proceeding are not entitled to

discovery as a matter of course. Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904

(1997); Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 728 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 540 U.S. 1013 (2003). Rather, "[a] party shall be entitled

to invoke the processes of discovery available under the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to the extent that, the judge in the

exercise of his [or her] discretion and for good cause shown grants

leave to do so, but not otherwise." Rule 6(a), Rules Governing §

2254 Cases. See also Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904. Good cause is shown

"where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe

that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to

demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief." Bracy, 520 U.S. at

908-09 (quoting Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 300 (1969)). See

also Pham v. Terhune, 400 F.3d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 2004). In order to

obtain discovery a petitioner need not demonstrate that he will

prevail on the claim underlying the discovery request. See Bracy,

520 U.S. at 909 (“It may well be, as the Court of Appeals predicted,

that petitioner will be unable to obtain evidence sufficient to

support a finding of actual judicial bias in the trial of his case,

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 86
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

5

but we hold that he has made a sufficient showing . . . to establish

‘good cause’ for discovery.”); Pham, 400 F.3d at 743. Thus, it has

been “held that a district court abused its discretion in not

ordering Rule 6(a) discovery when the discovery was ‘essential’ for

the habeas petitioner to ‘develop fully’ his underlying claim. Id.

(quoting Jones v. Wood, 114 F.3d 1002, 1009 (9th Cir. 1997)). See

also McDaniel v U.S. District Court (Jones), 127 F.3d 886, 888 (9th

Cir. 1997) (finding that the district court “acted well within its

discretion in ordering discovery” where the petitioner’s claims did

“not appear purely speculative or without any basis in the record.”). 

Finally, a request for discovery “must also include any

proposed interrogatories and requests for admission, and must specify

any requested documents." Rule 6(b). Federal courts have “the power

to ‘fashion appropriate modes of procedure,’ including discovery, to

dispose of habeas petitions ‘as law and justice require[.]’” Id. at

904 (citations omitted) (quoting Harris, 394 U.S. at 299-300). See

also Bittaker, 331 F.3d at 728. 

PETITIONER'S DISCOVERY MOTION

Request 1: A List of all Witnesses Interviewed by the Prosecution

This first request presents an example of the frustration 

created by the manner in which petitioner’s counsel has chosen to

present these discovery requests. The request seeks a complete list

of all witnesses, including prisoners, prison staff and others, 

interviewed by the prosecution in the underlying state court case,

including those interviewed by telephone, the date of the interview,

and whether the interview was tape-recorded. 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 5 of 86
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

6

Respondent contends that a comprehensive list of the inmate

witnesses interviewed, including dates and explanatory notes, was

produced to petitioner’s counsel on July 24, 2000. (Resp. to Supp.

Mot. for Discovery at 4, Ex. 1.) Moreover, petitioner’s counsel was

informed by respondent that no similar list of non-inmate witnesses

who were interviewed was in respondent’s possession but that an

alphabetical list of all witnesses who testified at trial was being

produced. (Id.) Respondent has submitted to this court the eleven

page list of inmate witnesses interviewed by the prosecution which

includes the dates of the interviews and other explanatory notes, as

well as the five page list of all trial witnesses. (Id.)

Petitioner’s initial reply to these representations by

respondent was to assert that no such list had been provided and

that, in any event, due to the alleged wholesale concealment of

evidence by the prosecution, there could be no reliance placed in any

information provided to petitioner’s counsel in the past. (Reply

filed June 4, 2004 at 5.) 

At the hearings on the motions petitioner’s counsel first

argued that although a list of prisoner witnesses interviewed had

been provided, counsel believed it was incomplete and that a new list

should be assembled and produced by respondent. (Reporter’s

Transcript of June 16, 2004 (hereinafter RTI) at 9, 20). Ultimately,

however, petitioner’s counsel took the position that petitioner did

not seek an actual list of the witnesses interviewed by the

prosecution. (RTI at 10, 20; Reporter’s Transcript of March 11, 2005

(hereinafter RTII) at 8.) Instead, petitioner’s counsel cited the

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 6 of 86
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

4 In Request 2 petitioner’s counsel seeks an order compelling

production of all reports regarding the incident prepared in

connection with this investigation, leading the court to wonder why

Request 1 was made at all. 

7

example of a prisoner by the name of Alexander Vichi who was located

by petitioner’s counsel and who testified at the evidentiary hearing

held in connection with the state habeas petition. According to

petitioner, Vichi testified that he was interviewed by investigators

within a few days of the killings, told them that he saw the incident

and reviewed a photospread for investigators in identifying

petitioner’s co-defendant and another individual, not petitioner, as

the perpetrators. (RTI at 6, 8; RTII at 3.) Backtracking once

again, petitioner’s counsel then conceded that Mr. Vichi’s name

appeared on the list of prisoner witnesses interviewed that

respondent produced to counsel years ago. (RTI at 9-10.) Finally,

petitioner’s counsel argued that he was actually only seeking

production of the report of this interview with Mr. Vichi because one

had never been produced.4 (RTI at 6,20; RTII at 4.)

Petitioner has failed to establish good cause for the court

to require respondent’s current counsel to assemble a new list of

prisoner witnesses interviewed by the prosecution to verify the

accuracy of the list provided to petitioner’s counsel in July of

2000. Likewise, counsel has failed to establish good cause for an

order requiring respondent to create a list of all non-prisoner

witnesses interviewed by the prosecution in the course of the

investigation which took place in 1980. This is particularly true in

light of the extensive discovery already produced in connection with

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 7 of 86
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

8

these proceedings as well as the state court habeas proceedings,

including approximately 1200 pages of additional discovery which

petitioner’s counsel acknowledges was provided earlier this year. 

Accordingly, this request is denied. 

Request 2: Copies of All Reports Regarding This Incident

Through this request petitioner’s counsel originally sought

copies of all reports prepared by the California Department of

Corrections (CDC), correctional officers, Medical Technical

Assistants (MTA’s) and civilians regarding the killing of prisoner

Charles Gardner and Correctional Officer Albert Patch including but

not limited to reports by Correctional Officer Thomas Hartman dated

January 14, 1981 and January 26, 1983, a report by Correctional

Officer Manual Gloria dated December 12, 1980 and a report by

Correctional Officer Peter DuQuesnay referred to at a specific page

of his trial testimony. 

Respondent counters that to the extent such reports exist

they have previously been produced to petitioner’s counsel in the

state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 4,

Ex. 1.) Nonetheless, respondent guardedly acknowledges that some of

the specific reports requested by petitioner “have never been

located.” (Id.) At the second hearing on the pending motion

petitioner’s counsel limited this request so as to seek only the

reports of four correctional officers (Officers Rudolph, Hartman,

Gloria and DuQuesnay) who were working on the third floor of the unit

on the day the killings took place.

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 8 of 86
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

9

The court finds that petitioner has made a showing of good

cause with respect to this request as modified at the hearing. It

appears undisputed that Correctional Officer Rudolph testified at the

evidentiary hearing in the state habeas proceeding that it was his

practice to prepare contemporaneous reports with respect to such

incidents but that given the passage of time he could not recall if

he did so in this case. Moreover, one would expect there to be such

a report from the officer stationed at the third floor gate to the

unit given the nature of the prosecution. Finally, if

contemporaneous reports from the officers on duty at the scene of the

killings exist, but were never turned over to the defense, certainly

such information is essential for petitioner to fully develop his

prosecutorial misconduct claim. Under these circumstances the

modified request is not unduly speculative.

Accordingly, respondent will be ordered to produce the

requested reports. If the response is that no additional reports

exist other than those already produced, respondent shall make that

representation in writing. In doing so respondent may refer to the

description of the reports already produced by reference to the pages

of the briefs submitted in connection with this motion.

Request 3: A List of All Correctional Officers On Duty at CMF on

August 17, 1980 Between 6:00 a.m. and 11 a.m.

Petitioner’s counsel later limited this request to seeking

a list of all officers on duty on the three floors of the California

Medical Facility (CMF) housing wings at issue and at the B-1 clinic. 

At the second hearing on this motion petitioner’s counsel argued that

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 9 of 86
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

5 This is a matter of some import throughout this order. At

the second hearing on the pending motion the court inquired of

respondent’s counsel regarding the nature of the representations

being made and confirmed that they were based upon a full and

10

the thrust of the request was to seek the identity of any

correctional officers other than officer Rudolph who had a key to the

third floor gate on the day in question. (RTII at 10.) 

Respondent contends that a complete staff roster was

produced to petitioner’s counsel in the state habeas proceedings.

(Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 5, Exs. 1 & 2.)

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 4: A list of All Prisoners Housed in the L-3 Wing at CMF on

August 16-17, 1980

Petitioner seeks discovery of this information for obvious

reasons. However, respondent contends that the requested information

“does not exist.” (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 5, Ex. 3.)

Petitioner at the second hearing on the pending motion suggested that

respondent should be compelled to investigate and re-create or

reassemble the requested information. The court declines to order

respondent to carry out such an investigation. The court does note

that in the state habeas proceedings the Deputy Attorney General

stated to petitioner’s counsel that the requested housing roster

“could not be found.” (Id.) Respondent now affirmatively represents

to the court that the requested list “does not exist” and respondent

will be held to that representation.5 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 10 of 86
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

complete good faith inquiry by the collective counsel for respondent. 

(RTII at 5-10.) The court also addressed, and counsel for respondent

acknowledged, the fact that given the nature of the allegations in

the second amended petition any future evidence of non-disclosure

inconsistent with these representations by respondent would likely

result in an inference of misconduct. (Id.) 

6 It is difficult not to infer from this that counsel’s

motivation in seeking the requested discovery is to reinvestigate the

case from the beginning in the hope of developing additional evidence

in support of an actual innocence claim.

11

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 5: Court Orders Regarding the Collection of Blood Samples

From Petitioner or Any Other Prisoner, Including William Stevens

At one point petitioner’s counsel withdrew this request.

(Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 6.) It was apparently resurrected with

counsel arguing in conclusory fashion that the information sought was

relevant to claim twenty of his amended petition in which he argues

that his rights were violated by the introduction of evidence that he

refused to provide a blood sample when asked to do so. (Supp. Mot.

for Discovery at 8.) No further argument has been submitted.6

Respondent contends that any document arguably within the

scope of this request is either part of the state court record or has

been previously produced to petitioner in the state court

proceedings.

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 11 of 86
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 7 Request 7 was withdrawn by petitioner in his amended motion.

12

Request 6: All Reports by Dr. William Welch Regarding This Case

Petitioner’s argument in support of this discovery request

is based solely on his theory that Dr. Welch was intoxicated at the

time of the killings and provided negligent medical treatment to

victim Gardner thereby contributing to Gardner’s death and that the

trial prosecutor suppressed and delayed de-licensing proceedings

against Dr. Welch until after petitioner’s trial at which time the

proceedings were terminated.

Respondent reports that all reports by Dr. Welch have

previously been provided to petitioner’s counsel and that, in any

event, petitioner has established no link between the requested

reports authored by Dr. Welch and petitioner’s claim of prosecutorial

misconduct surrounding the doctor’s de-licensing proceedings. The

argument is persuasive.

Petitioner has made no attempt to link the requested

discovery to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly,

this request will be denied. 

Request 87: Unredacted Copies of all In Camera Proceedings

In this request petitioner seeks unredacted transcripts of

all in camera proceedings held by the state trial court both before

and during petitioner’s trial. Petitioner argues that the unredacted

transcripts are relevant to Claim 1 of his petition in which he

argues that prosecutorial misconduct violated his constitutional

rights. Specifically, petitioner argues that the prosecutor

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 12 of 86
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

13

routinely misused in camera proceedings as a way of convincing the

trial judge to sanction the withholding of exculpatory evidence from

the defense. Petitioner notes that this request was granted with a

protective order in the 1995 discovery order by Judge Moulds. At the

second hearing on this discovery motion, petitioner’s counsel

suggested that the unredacted transcripts of all in camera hearings

should be submitted for in camera review by this court. (RTII at 14.)

Respondent counters that this issue was litigated in state

court with the invocation of the official information and informant

identity privileges being upheld. Respondent argues that petitioner

has made no showing that information was withheld from him and that

if it was, that it was improperly withheld. 

The question is a somewhat close one. Respondent is

correct that petitioner has not made a showing that any information

was withheld from him as a result of the in camera hearings in state

court. On the other hand, because those proceedings were held in

camera it would be virtually impossible for petitioner to make such a

showing. Petitioner has leveled serious allegations of widespread

misconduct against the trial prosecutor. It is petitioner’s claim,

in part, that the prosecutor abused in camera proceedings when faced

with simple requests for discovery and misled the trial court into

sanctioning the withholding of exculpatory evidence from the defense. 

Documents belatedly produced to petitioner’s counsel in the state

habeas proceedings and the testimony from witnesses presented by

/////

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 13 of 86
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

8 Indeed, the California Supreme Court has acknowledged

and/or suggested that the defense was either not provided discovery

by the prosecution that it was entitled to or that such disclosure

was made belatedly. See People v. Roberts, 2 Cal. 4th 271, 308, 330

(1992); In re Roberts, 29 Cal. 4th 726, 751-53 (2003) (dissent).

14

petitioner at that hearing provide at least some circumstantial

support for such claims.8 

Accordingly, the court finds good cause exists for some

additional discovery in this area. In order to ensure that state

court orders with respect to potentially applicable privileges are

accorded adequate consideration, the transcripts of all in camera

hearings conducted by the state trial court shall be produced for in

camera review by this court. Whether further disclosure is required

will be addressed by this court with the parties following that

review.

Request 9: Prosecution Notes of a Conversation Between the Trial

Prosecutor and Correctional Officer Rudolph

At petitioner’s trial Correctional Officer Rudolph,

identified as a key witness by petitioner’s counsel, testified

regarding a then-recent conversation he had with the trial

prosecutor. Petitioner’s counsel seeks discovery of the notes

prepared by the prosecutor regarding that conversation, arguing that

they are relevant to his prosecutorial misconduct claim.

Respondent first contended that to the extent such

information exists it was provided to petitioner’s counsel in the

state habeas proceedings (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 4) and then

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 14 of 86
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

15

later argued that no such notes have been found. (Resp. to Supp. Mot.

for Discovery at 7.)

It appears undisputed that officer Rudolph was an important

witness at the trial. Petitioner’s showing in support of this 

discovery request is not particularly strong, being based apparently

on the assumption that it is likely notes were taken about this

conversation. However, respondent’s replies are arguably

inconsistent and confusing. Accordingly, the court finds good cause

to grant the request and respondent will be ordered to produce the

notes in question. If respondent’s response is that no such notes

exist or that none exist in addition to those already produced, he

shall make that representation in writing. In providing this

discovery respondent may refer to the description of the reports

already produced by reference to the briefs submitted in connection

with this motion.

Request 10: A List of Those Prisoners “Locked Up” As a Result of This

Incident on August 17, 1980

Petitioner requests a list of those prisoners “locked up”

as a result of the August 17, 1980 incident including those who were

placed in W-wing for purposes of securing information about the case

from petitioner or other prisoners. He argues that such information

is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. As part of

that claim, the second amended petition alleges that prosecutors sent

three prisoners (Rooks, Cade and Calvin) to the W-wing segregation

unit where petitioner was being held in an attempt to obtain

confessions and/or admission from petitioner and his co-defendant

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 15 of 86
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

16

Menefield. (2d Am. Pet at 138-39.) At the hearing on this motion,

counsel for petitioner conceded that a list of prisoners moved to 

W-wing as a result of the incident has previously been produced. 

(RTII at 14-15.) Once again re-focusing the discovery request,

petitioner’s counsel stated that what was sought was information

regarding the prisoners who were moved to that wing for purposes of

obtaining information from petitioner and other pursuant to a prior

arrangement with authorities. (Id.) (emphasis added).

In opposition respondent represents once again that

petitioner’s counsel was provided the requested information during

the state habeas proceedings. However, in taking this position

respondent appears to refer merely to the general list of inmate

witnesses interviewed. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 7, Ex.

1.) 

The information petitioner now seeks, as limited at the

hearing on the motion, is more specific. Respondent does not contend

that petitioner has been provided the names of prisoners specifically 

sent to his wing for purposes of securing information as jailhouse

informants. Such information would allow petitioner to fully develop

this aspect of his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Accordingly,

respondent will be ordered to produce it. 

Request 11: Original Notes of Correctional Officer Stall

Respondent represents that petitioner has been provided

this information, to the extent it exists, during the state habeas

proceeding. Thereafter, petitioner elected not to present any

further argument with respect to this request at the hearing. 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 16 of 86
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

17

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of additional

discovery in this regard and this request will be denied. 

Request 12: Information Regarding Whether Co-Defendant Menefield Was

An Informant While Incarcerated

Petitioner inquires whether his co-defendant Menefield was

ever an informant for law enforcement while incarcerated and, if so,

seeks all details of any information Menefield gave authorities prior

to August 17, 1980, regarding any prisoner or CDC personnel. 

Respondent counters that the requested information is

privileged and that petitioner has failed to establish the relevance

of the discovery sought to any claim presented in this action.

At the hearing on the motion petitioner’s counsel attempted

to make an argument regarding the relevance of the requested

information based upon the possibility that Menefield was

surreptitiously pressured into making statements implicating

petitioner. (See RT II at 15.) Counsel’s theory of relevance was

extremely speculative in nature. Petitioner’s attempt to link the

requested discovery to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct is

unpersuasive. Accordingly, this request will be denied. 

Request 13: A List of Consideration given Prisoner Witnesses

This requests seeks a comprehensive list of all

consideration, assistance or rewards given by authorities to any

prisoner witness in this case. Petitioner contends that the

requested discovery is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial

misconduct. At the hearing on the motion, petitioner’s counsel

represented that some documents responsive to this request that had

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 17 of 86
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

9 At the second hearing on the pending motion petitioner’s

counsel withdrew all of the requests for discovery with respect to

two (Mr. Calvin and Mr. Goodwin) of the six witnesses referred to in

these requests. (RTII at 16.) 

18

never been seen by him before had recently been produced by the

Deputy Attorney General now assigned to this case. (RTII at 16.)

 Respondent has at various times taken the position that

such information is subject to the official information privilege,

has previously been produced to petitioner to the extent it exists in

the state habeas proceedings and is a matter of public record equally

available to petitioner. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 5; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 8.)

Given the varied responses to this request as well as

petitioner’s unchallenged representations that new documents

responsive to the request have been produced by respondent after the

state habeas proceedings (when according to one of the responses all

such information was already produced), this request will be granted. 

In providing this discovery respondent may refer to the description

of the documents already produced by reference to the pages of the

briefs submitted in connection with this motion.

Request 14: Access to All CDC and Department of Health Files On

Witnesses Cade, Calvin, Goodwin, Hayes, Long and Rooks9

In this request as modified at the second hearing,

petitioner now seeks the CDC and Department of Health files for four

prisoner witnesses or, in the alternative, access to the files for

review and copying. Petitioner characterizes the information he

seeks as critical to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. At the

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 18 of 86
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

19

hearing on the motion petitioner’s counsel argued that with respect

to witnesses Cade and Hayes, some information from their central

files has been obtained by the defense (either in state habeas

proceedings or in these proceedings) which they believe to be

exculpatory and that was never disclosed by the prosecutor at trial. 

This fact leads them to conclude that the central files for these

prosecution witnesses contain additional material about their prior

informant activities, prior criminal activities, consideration

provided for their testimony and arguably prior statements

inconsistent with their trial testimony. (RTII at 16-23.) 

Petitioner’s counsel argued at the hearing that this discovery

request is among the most significant petitioner has presented to the

court. 

Respondent counters that this discovery request is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, calls for information not relevant to

these habeas proceedings, and given the sensitive nature of the files

in question clearly calls for confidential or privileged information. 

At a minimum, respondent argues that petitioner should be required to

specify the information he seeks from these files and demonstrate how

that information is relevant to his prosecutorial misconduct claim.

The question is again a close one. Respondent is correct

that petitioner has not made a showing with respect to the specific

relevant information he believes is contained within these files. On

the other hand, because petitioner’s counsel has not had access to

those files it would have been difficult for him to do so. What 

petitioner has done is level serious allegations of widespread

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 19 of 86
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

10 In the dissent from the denial of the writ of habeas corpus

filed before the California Supreme Court, Justice Kennard, with

Chief Justice George concurring, observed that newly disclosed

documents about Cade’s institutional and psychiatric history came

into evidence at the state habeas reference hearing. 29 Cal. 4th at

751. Justice Kennard also noted that the trial prosecutor testified

at the hearing that he was aware at the time of trial of some of this

previously undisclosed evidence. Id. at 752. Finally, Justice

Kennard found it very significant that the jury at petitioner’s trial

never heard testimony regarding Cade’s mental health. Id. at 752-53. 

It is this type of evidence, likely to exist within CDC and

Department of Health files, which petitioner seeks. 

20

misconduct, including the withholding of Brady material, against the

trial prosecution team. Again, documents belatedly produced to

petitioner’s counsel in the state habeas proceedings and the

testimony from witnesses presented by petitioner at that hearing

provide at least some support for such claims. Moreover, the

California Supreme Court appears to have acknowledged that at trial

petitioner was not provided with discovery to which he was entitled. 

See People v. Roberts, 2 Cal. 4th 271, 308, 330 (1992); In re

Roberts, 29 Cal. 4th 726, 751-53 (2003) (dissent).10 

Accordingly, the court finds good cause exists for some

additional discovery in this area and the request will be granted in

part. To ensure that potentially applicable privileges are accorded

adequate consideration, the files in question shall be produced for

in camera review by this court. Whether further disclosure is

required will be addressed by this court with the parties following

that review.

Request 15: Rap Sheets for the Prisoner Witnesses

As modified at the hearing petitioner seeks the rap sheets

of prisoner witnesses Cade, Hayes, Long and Rooks.

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 20 of 86
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

21

Respondent first claims that the information sought is

privileged under state law and then represents that the rap sheets

for Cade, Long and Rooks (but not Hayes) were provided to petitioner

in the fall of 2000. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 6; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 9.) Petitioner does not challenge this

representation. 

The request is granted in part. Respondent shall produce

the rap sheet of Mr. Hayes which has apparently not already been

provided to petitioner’s counsel.

Request 16: Board of Prison Terms Files for the Prisoner Witnesses

As modified at the hearing petitioner seeks the Board of

Prison Terms files of prisoner witnesses Cade, Hayes, Long and Rooks,

claiming that the information is relevant to his claim of

prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent objects arguing that the request is overbroad,

unduly burdensome, calls for information not relevant to these habeas

proceedings, and calls for information confidential under state law. 

Finally, respondent states that the request is duplicative of Request

13.

Petitioner has made no attempt to link the requested

discovery to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Were the court

to speculate, it may be the case that petitioner’s counsel hope to

find evidence in the Board of Prison Terms files that the prosecution

provided undisclosed consideration to these witnesses for their

testimony. If so, as respondent suggests, such evidence will be

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 21 of 86
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

22

disclosed in the response ordered as to Request 13, above. 

Accordingly, this discovery request will be denied. 

Request 17: Written Materials Submitted by Law Enforcement on Behalf

of the Prisoner Witnesses

This is the same request as Request 16 except it seeks any

writing submitted by law enforcement to the Attorney General Office,

the CDC or any other office or person on behalf of these prisoner

witnesses. The position of the parties is the same as with respect

to Request 16. Likewise, for the same reasons set forth with respect

Request 16, this discovery request will be denied. 

Request 18: Telephone Calls Made by Law Enforcement on Behalf of the

Prisoner Witnesses

Here, the argument are the same as those advanced with

respect to Requests 16 and 17 but are aimed at telephone calls made

by law enforcement on behalf of the four prisoner witnesses. For the

same reasons set forth with respect to Request 16, this discovery

request will be denied. 

Request 19: Appearances Before the Parole Board by Law Enforcement On

Behalf of the Prisoner Witnesses

The same arguments are presented as those with respect to

Requests 16, 17 and 18 but this request is aimed at appearances at

parole hearings made by law enforcement on behalf of the four

prisoner witnesses. For the same reasons set forth with respect to

Request 16, this discovery request will be denied. 

/////

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 22 of 86
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

23

Request 20: Disciplinary Reports For the Prisoner Witnesses

Petitioner seeks all prison disciplinary reports regarding

the four prisoner witnesses. 

Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, calls for information not relevant to

these habeas proceedings, calls for information confidential under

state law, calls for information protected by the official

information privilege and is duplicative of Request 14. Petitioner

has conceded this latter point. (Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 14.) 

Accordingly, this request is denied for the same reasons

and with the same terms as set forth above with respect to Request

14. 

Request 21: Details of Informant Activity By the Prisoner Witnesses

Here, petitioner seeks details of the prisoner witnesses

informant activity before August 17, 1980, including the nature of

the activity, statements made, testimony given in any forum, rewards

and benefits in connection with that prior informant activity and any

understandings reached with respect to future informant activity.

Respondent objects on the grounds that the request is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, calls for information not relevant to

these habeas proceedings, calls for information confidential under

state law, calls for information protected by the official

information privilege to the extent it seeks testimony given in other

proceedings is public information equally available to petitioner

and, without waiving objection, with respect to consideration given

to these witnesses is information already produced to petitioner in

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 23 of 86
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

24

the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 7;

Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 10.) 

Petitioner has made no attempt to link the requested

discovery relating to informant activity by these witnesses prior to

the killings to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct in the

underlying prosecution. To the extent the request seeks evidence of

consideration given in connection with petitioner’s trial, such

evidence will be disclosed in the response ordered as to Request 13,

above. Accordingly, this discovery request will be denied. 

Request 22: Details of the Incarceration of the Prisoner Witnesses

During Petitioner’s Trial

Petitioner alleges that the prosecution’s prisoner

witnesses were afforded preferential treatment from the time of the

killings through the trial and were housed together at CSP-Chino (CIM

East) and the Contra Costa County Jail so that, according to

testimony in the state habeas proceedings, they could “get their

story straight.” Accordingly, for the relevant time period, he seeks

the specific locations of their housing, the dates of the

incarceration at the particular location, data regarding any conjugal

visits and information regarding any prison disciplinary actions

taken with respect to the witnesses.

Respondent again objects on the grounds that the request

is overbroad, unduly burdensome, calls for information not relevant

to these habeas proceedings, calls for information confidential under

state law, calls for information protected by the official

information privilege to the extent it seeks testimony given in other

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 24 of 86
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

25

proceedings is public information equally available to petitioner

and, without waiving objection, represents that all “existing, nonprivileged documents responsive to this request” were provided to

petitioner in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for

Discovery at 8; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 11.) 

The information sought may well allow petitioner to fully

develop this aspect of his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. 

Indeed, respondent represents that all existing non-privileged

documents responsive to the request have been produced to petitioner. 

Good cause exists to order the production of the responsive documents

which respondent asserts are privileged for in camera review by the

court. Respondent shall deliver the documents to the chambers of the

undersigned with a privilege log on or before the date set herein for

compliance with the court’s order.

Request 23: Interview of Witness Hayes By Officer Gard

Petitioner seeks a copy of the interview of prisoner

witness Hayes by Special Agent Gard on April 21, 1981. Respondent

represents that any existing information responsive to the request

was produced to petitioner in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp.

to Mot. for Discovery at 8; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 11.)

In at least one brief, petitioner’s counsel denied that this was the

case. (Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 15.) However, respondent has

submitted to the court the discovery provided to petitioner’s counsel

on July 24, 2000 which includes a two page summary report of the

interview in question. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 11, Ex.

1B at 312-13.) Petitioner’s counsel has never provided any

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 25 of 86
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

26

explanation as to why this production was not adequate, why he denied

that it had ever been produced or why, in light of this production,

he continued to press forward with this apparently duplicative and

therefore meritless request. In any event, this discovery request

will be denied. 

Request 24: Hayes’ October 1982 Parole Violation

It is petitioner’s position that witness Hayes was on

parole at the time of petitioner’s preliminary examination and

testified that he had not seen the killing. Thereafter he was

arrested and charged with six felony offenses in Alameda County. 

Hayes later testified at petitioner’s trial, identifying petitioner

as the person who stabbed inmate Gardner. Petitioner argues that

documents discovered after petitioner’s trial reveal that the

prosecutor had contact with Hayes while his felony prosecution was

pending and that his change in testimony was due to the prosecutor’s

undisclosed intervention on his behalf. Accordingly, petitioner

seeks the requested information. Petitioner has also acknowledged

that certain information in this regard was disclosed to him in the

state habeas proceedings but that other information remains unknown.

(RTII at 24-25.)

Respondent contends that the request is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, calls for information not relevant to these habeas

proceedings, calls for information confidential under state law,

calls for information protected by the official information

privilege, to the extent it seeks testimony given in other

proceedings, is public information equally available to petitioner

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 26 of 86
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

11 At the second hearing on the motion petitioner’s counsel for

the first time expressed concern regarding the lack of information as

to whether Hayes contacted “them” (presumably the prosecution), did

they contact Hayes, did they help Hayes with his new cases?” (RTII

at 24.) Of course, these questions are not posed in this discovery

request which seeks in very general terms information regarding

Hayes’ 1982 violation of parole. 

27

and, without waiving objection, represents that all “existing, nonprivileged documents responsive to this request” were provided to

petitioner in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for

Discovery at 8; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 11 and Ex. 14.)

 Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

any additional discovery in this regard and this request will be

denied.11 

Request 25: Disciplinary Reports For Witness Calvin

As noted, at the second hearing on the pending motion

petitioner’s counsel withdrew all of the requests for discovery with

respect to prisoner witnesses Mr. Calvin and Mr. Goodwin. (RTII at

16.) Accordingly, this request will be denied.

Request 26: Information Regarding Efforts Made By Prosecutors to

Assist Witness Goodwin in His Re-sentencing

Denied for the same reason as Request 25.

Request 27: Disciplinary Reports For Witness Rooks

Petitioner seeks all disciplinary reports involving

incidents at CIM East in which prisoner witness Rooks was involved

prior to his testimony at petitioner’s trial. Petitioner’s counsel

again denies that any such information was produced. (Reply filed

June 4, 2004 at 16.) 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 27 of 86
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

28

Respondent contends that petitioner’s counsel was provided

this information in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for

Discovery at 9; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 11.) Respondent

refers to two specific pages of discovery previously provided to

petitioner. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 11, Ex. 1B at

00293-00294.) 

The court has reviewed the documents cited to by

respondent’s counsel as having previously been produced in the state

habeas proceedings in response to this request. The documents appear

to be an excerpt from a prison disciplinary log of some type for

Rooks. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 11, Ex. 1B at 00293-

00294.) The entries in the log appear to reflect disciplinary action

taken against Rooks in October and November of 1981 and perhaps

February of 1982. (Id.) However, no disciplinary reports involving

these incidents are set out in the cited to pages. Accordingly, this

discovery request will be granted. Respondent shall produce the

disciplinary reports relating to the incidents referred to in the log

or represent that, following a good faith search, no such records

exist. 

Request 28: Notes of April 21, 1981 Interview of Witness Rooks

Petitioner asserts that the transcript of the April 21,

1981, interview of prisoner witness Rooks by authorities ends

abruptly which suggests that the tape recorder was turned off. 

Accordingly, petitioner seeks any notes prepared by the interviewer

reflecting matters discussed before the recorder was turned on and

after it was turned off. Petitioner also claims that no such

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 28 of 86
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

29

information was provided to him in the state habeas proceedings. 

Petitioner states that the information sought is relevant to his

claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent represents that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings and that petitioner’s counsel had the opportunity

to question Rooks and the interviewer on this subject at the

evidentiary hearing held in connection with those proceedings. 

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 9; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery

at 12.) The notes respondent refers to would appear to end with the

words “tape off.” (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 12, Ex. 1 at

314-17.) Thus, the court construes this response as representing

that no notes exist of any discussion held after the recorder was

turned off. Respondent will be held to this answer.

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 29: Notes of May 25, 1981 Interview of Witness Rooks 

Likewise, petitioner asserts that the transcript of the May

25, 1981, interview of prisoner witness Rooks by authorities also

reflects that the recorder was turned off at the end of the

interview. Nonetheless, petitioner seeks any notes prepared by the

interviewer reflecting matters discussed after the recorder was

turned off. Petitioner claims that no such information was provided

to him in the state habeas proceedings and states that the 

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 29 of 86
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

12 It appears from the exhibits filed by respondent that Rooks

was interviewed, among other times, on both May 25, 1981 and May 25,

1982.

30

information sought is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial

misconduct.

Respondent again represents that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings and that petitioner’s counsel had the opportunity

to question Rooks and the interviewer on this subject at the

evidentiary hearing held in connection with those proceedings. 

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 9; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery

at 12.) Thus, the court construes this response as representing that

no notes exist of any discussion held after the recorder was turned

off other than possibly one page already produced by respondent. 

(Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 12, Ex. 1 at 315.) 

Petitioner has made no showing suggesting that any

additional discussion took place after the interview was concluded

and has not demonstrated good cause in support of his request for

additional discovery in this regard. Accordingly, this request will

be denied. 

Request 30: Unredacted Transcripts of Interviews of Witness Rooks 

Petitioner seeks unredacted transcripts of the April 21,

1981 and May 25, 1982, interviews of Rooks by authorities.12

Petitioner again claims that the information is related to his claim

of prosecutorial misconduct and that unredacted transcripts were not

provided to him in the state habeas proceedings. 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 30 of 86
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

13 Of course as is the case throughout the briefing submitted

in connection with this motion, petitioner’s counsel has identified

no such redactions but rather has merely made the broad allegation

that no unredacted transcripts have been produced. 

31

Respondent again represents that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 9; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 12.) The court has reviewed the exhibits

submitted by respondent containing the transcripts and has not been

able to identify any noticeable redactions.13 (See Resp. to Supp.

Mot. for Discovery at 12, 15 and Ex. 1 at 459-513.) 

Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in

support of his request for additional discovery in this regard and

this request will be denied. 

Request 31: Notes For Unrecorded Portions of the May 25, 1982

Interview of Witness Rooks

Petitioner asserts that the transcript of the May 25, 1982,

interview of prisoner witness Rooks by authorities reflects one

exchange that begins out of context and one instance where the tape

recorder was turned off and then back on again. Petitioner seeks any

notes or other information regarding discussions that were not

recorded during this interview. Petitioner makes the familiar claims

that no such information was provided to him in the state habeas

proceedings and that the information sought is relevant to his claim

of prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent represents that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 31 of 86
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

32

habeas proceedings and that petitioner’s counsel had the opportunity

to question Rooks and the interviewer on this subject at the

evidentiary hearing held in connection with those proceedings. 

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 9; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery

at 12, Ex. 1 at 459-513.) The court construes this response as

representing that no other notes exist of any discussion held while 

the recorder was turned off during the May 25, 1982 interview of

Rooks. Respondent will be held to this answer.

 Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 32: Notes or Transcripts of Another May 1982 Interview of

Witness Rooks

Petitioner asserts that during the May 25, 1982, interview

of prisoner witness Rooks, Deputy Attorney General Kirk stated that

Mr. Bennett talked to Rooks “a week or so ago.” Petitioner seeks

production of any notes or transcript of that interview by Mr.

Bennett stating that no such information was provided to him in the

state habeas proceedings and that the information sought is relevant

to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent’s somewhat evasive response is that, to the

extent it exists, petitioner has been provided the requested

information in the state habeas proceedings, that no notes or

transcript of such an interview exist and that, in any event,

petitioner’s counsel had the opportunity to question Mr. Bennett on

this subject at the evidentiary hearing held in connection with those

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 32 of 86
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

14 The court cannot locate a page numbered “11" in respondent’s

exhibit 1.

33

proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 9-10; Resp. to Supp.

Mot. for Discovery at 13.) The court construes this response as

representing that no notes reflecting or transcript of a early May

1982 interview of Rooks by Bennett exist. Respondent will be held to

this answer.

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 33: Identity of Long Interviewer on August 19, 1980

Petitioner seeks the name of the individual who interviewed

prisoner witness Raybon Long on August 19, 1980, explaining that

there was some confusion on this issue during the hearing in the

state habeas action.

Rather than simply providing the answer, respondent instead

chooses to argue that the information has already been provided to

petitioner’s counsel in the state habeas proceeding. (Resp. to Mot.

for Discovery at 9-10; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 13.) 

However, the citation provided by respondent in support of this

contention is unhelpful. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at

13, Ex. 1 at 11.)14 

Although this particular discovery request should have been

presented by way of proposed interrogatory (see Rule 6(b), Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases) and petitioner’s showing in support of the

request is virtually non-existent, enough time has been wasted on

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 33 of 86
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

15 This type of response is just as frustrating to the court as

petitioner’s unfocused, unsupported and ever-changing requests. If

there are no notes or transcripts of this interview, it is difficult

to fathom why respondent’s counsel will not simply say so and be done

with it. 

34

this simple request. Accordingly, the request will be granted and

respondent will be required to state the identity, if known, of the

individual who interviewed Long on the date in question. 

Request 34: Notes or Transcripts of August 29, 1980 Interview of

Witness Long

Petitioner asserts that records reflect Long was

interviewed by authorities on August 29, 1980, but that no notes or

transcripts of that interview have ever been produced. Petitioner

seeks production of the notes or transcript as relevant to his claim

of prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent’s rote response is that, to the extent it

exists, petitioner has been provided the requested information in the

state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 10; Resp.

to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 13, 15.) However, a review of the

exhibits submitted by respondent reflects neither notes or a

transcript of such an interview but merely a note that an interview

was conducted by a Sgt. D. Glenn on the date in question. (Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 1 at 514.)15 

It would appear that no notes or transcript of the August

29, 1980 interview of Long exist. However, respondent’s response is

sufficiently unclear so as to require a more definite response. 

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 34 of 86
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

35

Accordingly, respondent will be required to specifically answer the

inquiry. Petitioner’s request is granted.

Request 35: Notes or Transcripts of an Interview of Witness Long

Prior to September 2, 1980

Petitioner asserts that the transcript of the September 2,

1980 interview of Long reflects that prior to that date he had been

interviewed by correctional officer Gloria regarding a William

Stevens but that no notes or transcripts of such an interview have

ever been produced. Petitioner seeks their production as relevant to

his claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent’s rote response is that, to the extent it

exists, petitioner has been provided the requested information in the

state habeas proceedings and that petitioner’s counsel had the

opportunity to question correctional officer Gloria about this

subject at the evidentiary hearing in those state habeas proceedings.

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 10; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery

at 13, 15.) The court construes this response as representing that

no notes reflecting or transcript of a pre-September 2, 1980,

interview of Long where William Stevens was discussed exist. 

Respondent will be held to this answer.

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 36: Unredacted Transcript of April 17, 1981 Interview of Long

Petitioner seeks unredacted transcripts of the April 27,

1981 interview of Long by authorities. Petitioner again claims that

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 35 of 86
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 16 See fn. 10, infra.

36

the information is related to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct

and that unredacted transcripts were not provided to him in the state

habeas proceedings. 

Respondent again represents that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 10; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 13.) The court has reviewed the exhibits

submitted by respondent containing the transcripts and has not been

able to identify any noticeable redactions.16 (See Resp. to Supp.

Mot. for Discovery at 13, 15 and Ex. 1 at 537-95.) 

Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in

support of his request for additional discovery in this regard and

this request will be denied.

Request 37: Notes or Transcript of a November 1, 1982 Long Interview 

Petitioner asserts that records reflect that Long was

interviewed by authorities again on November 1, 1982 but that no

transcript of that interview have ever been produced. At the hearing

on the motion petitioner’s counsel acknowledged receiving one page

containing a mere four lines of handwritten notes apparently made

with respect to this interview of Long and argued that one would

expect at least a report of this interview to exist. Petitioner

seeks production of the transcript or report of this interview, as

relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 36 of 86
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

37

Respondent represents that petitioner has been provided the

requested information, to the extent it exists, in the state habeas

proceedings referring specifically to the single page noted by

petitioner. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 10; Resp. to Supp. Mot.

for Discovery at 13, 15 and Ex. 1 at 318.) The court construes this

response as representing that no transcript or report of the November

1, 1982 interview of Long exists. Respondent will be held to this

answer.

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 38: Legible Copy of Witness Cade’s Handwritten Statement

Petitioner seeks a legible copy of an undated two-page

handwritten statement by prisoner witness Ryland Cade. Although one

would presume from the request that petitioner’s counsel has a copy

of such a statement but finds it illegible, as is typical of these

discovery requests, petitioner has failed to explain the nature or

basis of the request. Instead, petitioner’s counsel again make the

bare assertion that “no such information” has been provided to them

in the state habeas proceedings. (Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 17.) 

Petitioner alleges that the discovery sought is relevant to his claim

of prosecutorial misconduct.

Responding in kind, rather than pointing to the document

previously produced which respondent believes satisfies the request,

respondent objects to the request on the grounds that it is

duplicative because to the extent it exists, petitioner has been

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 37 of 86
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

38

provided the requested information in the state habeas proceedings

and that in any event petitioner’s counsel had the opportunity to

question Cade and his interviewers about this subject at the

evidentiary hearing in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot.

for Discovery at 10; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 14-15.) In

representing that the document has previously been produced, however,

respondent does not refer the court to the specific document in its

exhibits but merely sites to all the documents produced regarding

interviews of witness Cade. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex.

1C at 690-821.) 

Thus, the court is again left the task of deciphering

whether respondent’s position is that the document does not exist or

has been produced and, if the latter, which produced document

respondent believes is responsive to the request. The court has

expended the time required to review all the documents produced by

respondent and cannot locate any documents that appear to be an

undated handwritten statement authored by Cade. Accordingly, despite

the limited showing made by petitioner, the court will grant the

request and direct respondent to produce a legible copy of the

undated handwritten statement authored by Cade or state affirmatively

that it does not exist.

Request 39: Memoranda Reflecting Unrecorded Portion of the September

5, 1980 Interview of Witness Cade

Petitioner asserts that the transcript of the September 5,

1980, interview of Cade by authorities reflects that there was

conversation before the tape recorder was turned on. Petitioner

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 38 of 86
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

39

seeks any written memoranda reflecting the discussions that were not

recorded. Petitioner makes the familiar claims that no such

information was provided to him in the state habeas proceedings and

that the information sought is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial

misconduct.

Typically, respondent represents that, to the extent it

exists, petitioner has been provided the requested information in the

state habeas proceedings and that petitioner’s counsel had the

opportunity to question Cade and his interviewer on this subject at

the evidentiary hearing held in connection with those proceedings. 

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 10-11; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for

Discovery at 114-15, Ex. 1C at 690-812.) The court construes this

response as representing that no other notes exist of any discussion

held before the recorder was turned on during the September 5, 1980

interview of Cade. Respondent will be held to this answer.

 Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 40: Undeleted Copy of the April 16, 1981 Interview of Witness

Cade

Petitioner seeks undeleted transcripts of the April 16,

1981, interview of Long by authorities. Petitioner again claims that

the information is related to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct

and that an undeleted transcript of this interview was not provided

to him in the state habeas proceedings. 

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 39 of 86
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

17 The court observes that there are perhaps five instances in

the eighty-five page transcript of this interview where a solid line

appears in the middle of an answer. It is possible that the line

indicates a redaction. On the other hand it may reflect a portion of

the tape found to be inaudible. In any event, petitioner has made no

showing in this regard that would justify the court ordering further

discovery.

40

Respondent again represents that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 11; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 14-15.) The court has reviewed the

exhibits submitted by respondent containing the transcripts and has

not been able to identify any noticeable redactions.17 (See Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 15 and Ex. 1C at 731-816.) 

Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in

support of his request for additional discovery in this regard and

this request will be denied.

Request 41: Memoranda Regarding Statements Made By Witness Cade

Petitioner asserts that during a April 16, 1981 interview 

Cade stated that he had previously told correctional officers about

statements allegedly made by petitioner. Petitioner seeks production

of any written memoranda reflecting Cade’s prior statement to the

correctional officers in this regard. Petitioner represents that no

such information was provided to him in the state habeas proceedings

and that the information sought is relevant to his claim of

prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent states that, to the extent it exists, petitioner

has been provided the requested information in the state habeas

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 40 of 86
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

41

proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 11; Resp. to Supp. Mot.

for Discovery at 14.) The court construes this response as

representing that no such written memoranda reflecting Cade’s

statement to the correctional officers exists. At the second hearing

on this motion counsel for respondent essentially confirmed that this

was an accurate interpretation of respondent’s position. (RTII at

26.) Respondent will be held to this answer.

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and the request

will be denied.

Request 42: Copies of All Statements Made By Cade, Hayes, Rooks and

Long Not Previously Disclosed

In this summary request petitioner now seeks copies of

statements, or if no recorded statement exists, summaries of all

statements, made by witnesses Cade, Hayes, Rooks and Long that have

not been previously disclosed. Petitioner argues that information

has not been disclosed that is relevant to his prosecutorial

misconduct claim.

Respondent counters that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 11; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 15.)

 The court finds that this request has been resolved in

connection with each of the many specific requests relating to each

of these four witnesses addressed above. Where respondent has

indicated that other than those already produced no notes, transcript

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 41 of 86
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

42

or other written record of an interview or statement exists,

respondent will be held to that answer. Respondent will not,

however, be required to attempt to create a summary of statements

purportedly given over twenty years ago where no written record of

those statements exists. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied except to the extent indicated above.

Request 43: Notes or Transcripts of August 17, 1980 Interview of

Witness Black

Petitioner seeks production of the notes or transcript of

an August 17, 1980, interview of Robert Black as relevant to both his 

confrontation clause and prosecutorial misconduct claims. He asserts

that although Black’s statement to investigators was admitted into

evidence at trial, no notes or transcripts of that statement have

ever been produced. 

Respondent counters that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 11; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 15, Ex. 1B at 335.)

The court has reviewed the document referred to by

respondent in support of the position that the requested item has

been produced. The court finds the court’s copy of these handwritten

notes, which apparently reflects interviews of various prisoner

witnesses in August of 1980, to be illegible in part. (See Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 1B at 335.) To the extent the exhibit

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 42 of 86
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

43

is legible the court is unable to locate any note purportedly

reflecting any statement made by a witness on August 17, 1980, as

requested by petitioner. Accordingly, respondent will be required to

provide a further response to this discovery request by producing a

legible copy of the document(s) if possible and by specifically

identifying the entry respondent finds responsive or by amending its

response to affirmatively represent that no document exists

reflecting an interview of Black on August 17, 1980.

Request 44: Notes or Transcripts of August 30, 1980 Interview of

Witness Black

Petitioner seeks the transcript of the August 30, 1980,

interview of Black or notes reflecting that interview. He asserts

that the transcript is relevant to both his confrontation clause and

prosecutorial misconduct claims and that no transcript of that

interview has ever been produced.

 Respondent represents that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 11; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 15, Ex. 1 at 336-46.) The court has

reviewed the exhibits submitted by respondent containing the

transcript and, despite petitioner’s representations to the contrary,

it appears clearly to have been produced to counsel in the state

habeas proceedings. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 1 at

336-46.) 

/////

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 43 of 86
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

44

Accordingly, petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in

support of his request for additional discovery in this regard and

this request will be denied.

Request 45: Copies of All Statements Made By Witness Moore Not

Previously Disclosed

Petitioner seeks any memoranda reflecting conversations,

presumably by law enforcement authorities, with a Joseph Moore other

than the interviews conducted on July 7 and 8, 1981. Petitioner

concedes that he has previously been provided copies of the

transcripts of those two interviews. In this regard, petitioner

notes that Moore did not appear as a trial witness. Instead,

according to petitioner, statements attributable to Moore were

admitted into evidence at trial only against petitioner’s codefendant Menefield but were relied upon by the prosecutor in closing

argument with respect to the case against petitioner. Because

neither Moore nor Menefield testified, petitioner has claimed that he

was not allowed to impeach the statements in violation of his right

to confront the witnesses against him. Thus, petitioner argues the

requested discovery is relevant to both his confrontation clause and

prosecutorial misconduct claims.

Respondent objects, arguing that the requested discovery is

not relevant to any claim presented in the pending petition and the

request should be denied. Respondent emphasizes that Moore did not

appear as a witness at petitioner’s trial and that the inmate “kites”

that were to be the subject of Moore’s statements were only admitted

into evidence against Menefield.

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 44 of 86
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

45

In the motion before the court petitioner’s counsel has not

provided any reason to believe that additional memoranda reflecting

conversations with Moore exist, other than the interview transcripts

he has previously been provided. Moreover, petitioner’s counsel has

made no argument, let alone a showing, with respect to the relevance

of the information sought in connection with any of his claims. He

merely states that it is relevant. This is clearly not sufficient. 

The question of whether Moore’s statements were erroneously admitted

into evidence or improperly relied upon by the prosecutor in his

closing argument are legal issues, resolution of which is unaffected

by anything else that Moore may have said in some other hypothetical

conversation. Because petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in

support of further discovery in this regard this request will be

denied. 

Request 46: Letter from Witness Moore to the District Attorney

Here, petitioner’s counsel seeks a copy of a letter

purportedly sent by Moore to the “District Attorney” possibly of

Solano County on an unspecified date regarding an unspecified

subject.

Respondent objects, arguing that the requested discovery is

not relevant to any claim presented in the pending petition, is vague

and, in any event, calls for production of a document not in the

possession of respondent. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 12; Resp.

to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 16.) The response is persuasive.

/////

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 45 of 86
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

18 Discovery Request 47 was withdrawn by counsel for petitioner

prior to the hearings on the motions.

19 The court declines to rule on respondent’s other boilerplate

objections while noting that no showing with respect to the claim of

privilege has been made.

46

For the same reasons as set forth with respect to Request

45 as well as the other reasons stated by respondent, this request is

denied.

Request 4818: Witness Moore’s Informant Activities While Incarcerated

Petitioner’s counsel seeks all details of Moore’s informant

activities while incarcerated including transcripts, statements and

testimony.

Respondent objects, arguing that the requested discovery is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any claim presented in

the pending petition, and calls for production of information

protected by official information and informant identity privileges. 

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 12; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery

at 16.) The response is persuasive on the issue of relevance.19

For the same reasons as set forth with respect to Request

45 this discovery request is denied. 

Request 49: Memoranda Of Officer Horton’s Interview of Witness Payne

Petitioner seeks any memoranda of an interview of George

Payne by correctional officer Horton. He asserts that the memoranda

is relevant to his prosecutorial misconduct claim and has never been

produced.

 Respondent represents that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 46 of 86
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

47

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 12; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 16, Ex. 1 at 53.) The court has reviewed

the exhibits submitted by respondent and is unable to locate any

memorandum matching the request at “p. 53 under Exhibit 1" as

indicated by respondent. 

Accordingly, respondent will be required to provide a

further response to this discovery request by producing a copy of the

requested document(s) if possible and by specifically identifying the

entry respondent finds responsive or by amending its response to

affirmatively represent that no document exists reflecting an

interview of Payne by officer Horton.

Request 50: Writings Reflecting a June 30, 1982 Interview of Harrit

Wilson by Mr. Gard

Petitioner seeks any document reflecting a telephone 

interview of Harrit Wilson by investigator Gard on June 30, 1982. He

asserts that the memoranda is relevant to his prosecutorial

misconduct claim and has never been produced.

In response to this request respondent represents that 

to the extent it exists, petitioner has been provided the requested

information in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for

Discovery at 12; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 16, Ex. 1 at

319-28, 347-57.) 

The court has reviewed the exhibits submitted by respondent

and it appears that petitioner has been provided with two copies of

the transcript of the telephonic interview. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot.

for Discovery, Ex. 1 at 319-28, 347-57.) Both reflect that the

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 47 of 86
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

48

transcript “begins during break in conversation.” (Id.) However,

the court construes respondent’s response as representing that no

other written documentation of this telephonic interview exists. 

Respondent will be held to this answer.

 Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 51: Memoranda Regarding an Interview of Witness Hand Prior to

September 17, 1980

Petitioner seeks any memoranda of witness Donald Hand by

authorities prior to September 17, 1980. He asserts that the

memoranda is relevant to his prosecutorial misconduct claim and has

never been produced.

In response to this request respondent represents that 

to the extent it exists, petitioner has been provided the requested

information in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for

Discovery at 12; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 16, Ex. 1 at

358-94.) 

The court has reviewed the exhibits submitted by respondent

and it appears that petitioner has been provided with documents

reflecting three interviews of Donald Hand by authorities all of

which occurred on or after September 17, 1980. (See Resp. to Supp.

Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 1 at 358-94.) The court construes this

response as respondent representing that there are no written

memoranda in existence reflecting any interview of Donald Hand prior 

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 48 of 86
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

49

to September 17, 1980. Respondent will be held to this answer, which

they should have provided directly.

 Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 52: Notes or Transcript of Interviews of Witness Green

Petitioner seeks transcripts of or notes reflecting

interviews of a Phillip Green conducted on August 29, 1980 and April

21, 1981.

In response to this request respondent represents that 

to the extent it exists, petitioner has been provided the requested

information in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for

Discovery at 12; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 17, Ex. 1 at

395-427.) 

The court has reviewed the exhibits submitted by respondent

and it appears that petitioner has been provided with transcripts of

interviews of Green conducted on August 29, 1980, April 21, 1981 and

July 7, 1981 as well as notes from and summaries of the April 21,

1981 interview. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 1 at 395-

427.) 

Once again, petitioner’s position that the requested

materials were not provided to counsel in the state habeas

proceedings (see Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 18) appears to be

plainly false. Petitioner has clearly not demonstrated good cause in

support of his request for additional discovery in this regard and

this request will be denied. 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 49 of 86
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

50

Request 53: Notes or Transcript of Interviews of Witness Caton

Petitioner seeks transcripts of or notes reflecting any

interviews of a Richard Caton by authorities.

Respondent represents that to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 12; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 17, Ex. 1 at 329, 428-32.) 

The court has reviewed the exhibits submitted by respondent

and it appears that petitioner has been provided with a typed summary

of an interview of Caton conducted on April 22, 1981, as well as

handwritten notes from that interview. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for

Discovery, Ex. 1 at 329, 428-32.) The court construes this response

as respondent representing that there are no transcripts of this

interview and that no other documents reflecting any other interview

of Caton exist. Respondent will be held to this answer. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied.

Request 54: Notes or Transcript of Interviews of Witness Gaston

Petitioner seeks any written memoranda regarding any

interviews of a Lloyd Gaston.

Respondent represents that to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 13; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 17, Ex. 1 at 433.) 

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 50 of 86
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

51

The court has reviewed the exhibits submitted by respondent

and it appears that petitioner has been provided with one undated

page containing four lines of handwritten notes. (See Resp. to Supp.

Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 1 at 433.) The court construes this response

as respondent representing that this single page is the only document

reflecting any interview of Gaston which exists. Respondent will be

held to this answer.

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied.

Request 55: Notes or Transcript of August 18, 1980 Interview of

Witness Stevens

Petitioner seeks a transcript or notes of an interview of a

William Stevens on August 18, 1980.

Respondent objects to the request as vague as to the

identification of “William Stevens” but nonetheless represents that

to the extent it exists, petitioner has been provided the requested

information in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for

Discovery at 13; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 17, Ex. 1 at

10-11, 330-34, 434-58.) 

The court has reviewed the exhibits submitted by respondent

and it appears that petitioner has been provided with a typed summary

of interviews of Stevens conducted on August 18, 1980 and September

1, 1980, handwritten notes from an interview of September 2, 1980, a

transcript of the September 2, 1980 interview of Stevens and

miscellaneous notes written by Stevens. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 51 of 86
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

52

Discovery, Ex. 1 at 10-11, 330-34, 434-58.) The court construes this

response as respondent representing that no transcript of the August

18, 1980 interview of Stevens exists and that no notes regarding that

interview other than those indicated above exist. Respondent will be

held to this answer. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied.

Request 56: Notes or Transcript of Interviews of 39 Prisoners Not

Called As Witnesses by the Prosecution at Petitioner’s Trial

This request and the response thereto are troubling. 

Petitioner seeks all transcripts of, and notes reflecting, interviews

by the authorities of 39 prisoners who were not called as prosecution

witnesses at petitioner’s trial. Petitioner argues that the

requested discovery is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial

misconduct. In this vein, he claims that there is good cause to

require discovery of this information because he has learned that

prisoner Alexander Vichi was interviewed by prosecution investigators

and when showed photographs at that interview, Vichi identified

Menefield and another individual (not petitioner) as the two men who

assaulted Gardner. (Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 18.) Petitioner

alleges that the prosecutor did not call Vichi as a witness at

petitioner’s trial and suppressed all reports of his identification

of the assailants. (Id.) As a result, petitioner’s trial counsel

did not learn of Vichi, did not call him as a defense witness and was

denied this exculpatory information. (Id.) Petitioner argues that

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 52 of 86
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

53

despite respondent’s representations to the contrary, no document

containing any mention of Vichi has ever been produced to

petitioner’s counsel in the state or federal habeas proceedings. 

(Id.) Petitioner argues that in light of the misleading actions of

respondent in connection with discovery related to Vichi, discovery

should be granted as to all prisoners who were interviewed by

authorities and not called as trial witnesses.

Despite the serious nature of this allegation, respondent

provides even less than the rote response repeated many times above.

Initially, respondent took the position that to the extent the

information “exists and is relevant” it was produced to petitioner

either in trial proceedings or in the state habeas proceedings. 

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 13.) Later, respondent instead

objected to the request on the grounds that the information sought

was not relevant to these proceedings and that, with respect to three

prisoners (Vichi, Holland and Richardson), petitioner had already

been provided the information to the extent it exists at the state

habeas hearing. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 18.) However,

unlike the typical response set forth above, respondent provided no

citation to any exhibit which would allow the court to confirm what

petitioner’s counsel had received. Of course, such a response is

particularly unhelpful.

The court has reviewed the exhibits submitted by respondent

in support of its opposition to the pending motion. With respect to

prisoner Vichi the court has found only a letter dated November 3,

2000, from Deputy Attorney General Susan Lee to petitioner’s counsel

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 53 of 86
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

20 Discovery Request 57 was withdrawn by counsel for petitioner

prior to the hearings on the motions.

54

in which she states an objection to producing discovery with respect

to Vichi but states that “I can verify that I have looked for and

have not found any information indicating that Mr. Vichi identified a

person other than Larry Roberts as Gardner’s assailant.” (Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 14.) Regarding prisoner Marcus

Richardson the court has located correspondence written in March and

May of 2001 between Deputy Attorney General Lee and petitioner’s

counsel indicating that counsel was eventually provided with tape

recordings of an August 25, 1980 interview of Richardson. (Id., Exs.

15 & 16.) The court has been unable to locate a mention of prisoner

Holland, although such a reference may appear somewhere in the four

volumes of respondent’s exhibits since they are not indexed in any

way.

Given the serious nature of the allegations, the limited

response from respondent is insufficient. While it may be that

petitioner will be unable to obtain evidence sufficient to support a

finding of prosecutorial misconduct in the form of Brady violations,

he has made a sufficient showing establishing good cause for the

requested discovery. See Bracy, 520 U.S. at 909; Pham, 400 F.3d at

743. Accordingly, this request will be granted.

Request 5820: A Letter Regarding Witness Hayes

Petitioner asserts that at an in camera hearing conducted

in the state court proceedings on February 5, 1982, prosecution

investigator Gard referred to a letter received from another witness

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 54 of 86
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

55

regarding prisoner and prosecution witness Hayes. Petitioner claims

the letter is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct,

apparently suggesting that the letter may contain information

impeaching Hayes which was not produced to the defense.

Respondent objects to the request as calling for

information subject to the official information and informer identity

privileges and states that, in any event, petitioner’s counsel was

able to question Gard about this at the evidentiary hearing held in

the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 14;

Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 18.) 

The court finds petitioner’s showing to be based primarily

on speculation. On the other hand, respondent’s response to the

request is troubling in that it seems to infer that such a letter 

exists and that it may be relevant to petitioner’s prosecutorial

misconduct claim but should nonetheless not be disclosed due to an

unsupported claim of state privilege. Accordingly, the court finds

that good cause exists for the letter to be produced for in camera

review along with a privilege log explaining the assertion of

privilege. The discovery request is granted to that extent.

Request 58a: Memoranda of Gard’s Interview of the Writer of the

Letter Regarding Witness Hayes

The arguments regarding this request are the same as those

set forth above with respect to Request 58. The order will also be

the same. The court finds that good cause exists for the memoranda

of interview to be produced for in camera review along with a 

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 55 of 86
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

56

privilege log explaining the assertion of privilege. The discovery

request is granted to that extent.

Request 59: Undeleted Memoranda Reflecting Officer Gard’s

Conversation With Witness Hayes on January 21

Petitioner asserts that at an in camera hearing conducted

in the state court proceedings on February 5, 1982, prosecution

investigator Gard also referred to a conversation he had with Hayes

on January 21 of, presumably, 1982. Petitioner asserts that no notes

or memoranda reflecting that conversation have ever been produced. 

Petitioner seeks their production as relevant to his claim of

prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent first objected to the request as calling for

information subject to the official information privilege. (Resp. to

Mot. for Discovery at 14.) Changing course, respondent later

retreated to its rote response that, to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided all notes and transcripts of interviews

with Hayes in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for

Discovery at 18.) A review of the exhibits submitted by respondent

reflect no notes or transcript of a January 21, 1982 conversation

with Hayes by investigators. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex.

1 at 822-79.) It may be that the response was intended to convey the

position that no documents reflecting such a conversation between

Hayes and Gard exist. However, respondent’s inconsistent responses

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 56 of 86
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

21 Obviously, the second response indicating that transcripts

and notes of the various interviews of Hayes conducted by authorities

had already been produced to petitioner’s counsel in the state habeas

proceedings years earlier can only lead to the conclusion that the

first response, with its assertion of official information privilege,

was either carelessly made in error or not advanced in good faith.

57

cause the court to require a more definite response.21 Accordingly,

respondent will be required to specifically answer the inquiry. If

respondent’s position is that no document reflects the conversation

in question, counsel shall so state. Petitioner’s request is

granted.

Request 60: Letter From Witness Hayes to Officer Gard

Petitioner asserts that at the same February 5, 1982 in

camera hearing investigator Gard also referred to a letter he

received from Hayes in which Hayes claims that a “contract” was put

out on him after he was paroled in 1981. Petitioner asserts that the

letter has never been produced. Petitioner seeks its production as

relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. In this regard,

petitioner’s counsel argued at the second hearing that all contacts

between Hayes and the prosecution team is relevant to the

prosecutorial misconduct claim. (RTII at 28-29.) Petitioner

represents that in the state proceedings both the trial prosecutor,

Deputy Attorney General Kirk, and the prosecution investigator, Mr.

Gard, testified that they essentially had no contact with witness

Hayes from the time of his release on parole in August of 1981 and

the commencement of petitioner’s trial in the fall of 1982. 

Petitioner argues that all evidence of contact between the

prosecution team and Hayes during that period, including this letter,

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 57 of 86
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

58

is relevant to the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct. In

response to respondent’s bare assertion of privilege, petitioner

states the willingness to have a protective order imposed.

Respondent objects to the request as calling for

information subject to the official information privilege. (Resp. to

Mot. for Discovery at 14; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 19.) 

Given the fact that transcripts and notes of the various interviews

of Hayes conducted by authorities have been produced to petitioner’s

counsel in the state habeas proceedings, the bare assertion of

privilege with respect to this letter from Hayes to investigator Gard

is insufficient. Accordingly, the court finds that good cause exists

for the letter in question to be produced for in camera review along

with a privilege log explaining the assertion of privilege. The

discovery request is granted to that extent.

Request 61: Undeleted Memoranda Reflecting a Meeting Between Officer

Gard and Witness Hayes on The “22nd”

Similarly, petitioner asserts that at the February 5, 1982 

in camera hearing prosecution investigator Gard also referred to a

meeting he had with Hayes on the “22nd.” Petitioner asserts that no

document reflecting such a meeting has ever been produced. 

Petitioner seeks its production as relevant to his claim of

prosecutorial misconduct and makes the same argument as advanced in

support of Request 60.

In opposition, respondent again makes a bare assertion of

the official information privilege. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at

14; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 19.)

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 58 of 86
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

59

Again, in light of the fact that transcripts and notes of

the various interviews of Hayes conducted by authorities have been

produced to petitioner’s counsel in the state habeas proceedings, the

bare assertion of privilege with respect to any memoranda from such a

meeting between Hayes and investigator Gard is insufficient. 

Accordingly, respondent will be required to specifically answer the

inquiry. If respondent’s position is that no document reflects the

meeting in question, counsel shall so state. Petitioner’s request is

granted.

Request 62: Deputy Attorney General Kirk’s Memorandum Regarding

Unused Informants

Petitioner asserts that at the February 5, 1982 in camera

hearing prosecutor Kirk referred to a memorandum relating to what he

described as “unused informants.” Petitioner asserts that the

memorandum is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct and

should be disclosed because it may reflect exculpatory evidence that

was not disclosed to his trial counsel. 

Respondent objects to the request as calling for the

production of information subject to the official information

privilege. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 14; Resp. to Supp. Mot.

for Discovery at 19.) Moreover, respondent argues that petitioner is

engaged in a mere fishing expedition since he has made no showing

regarding the exculpatory information he expects to find or that any

such information exists. Finally, respondent contends that the

identity of these “unused informants” was disclosed to petitioner’s

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 59 of 86
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

60

counsel in the state habeas proceedings on November 28, 2000. 

Petitioner does not counter this last representation. 

Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing of good cause

in support of his request for additional discovery in this regard and

this request will be denied. 

Request 63: All Documents Regrading Identities of Witnesses A and B

Petitioner seeks the identities of witnesses “A and B” who

were the subjects of an in camera hearing held before the state trial

court on February 19, 1982. Petitioner claims that the information

sought is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. At one

point, counsel for petitioner withdrew this request (see Reply filed

June 4, 2004 at 20) but then thereafter argued in support of it. 

(See Am. Supp. Mot. at 31.)

Respondent objects to the request as calling for the

production of information subject to the official information

privilege. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 14; Resp. to Supp. Mot.

for Discovery at 19.) Nonetheless, respondent contends that the

identity of witness A was disclosed to petitioner’s trial counsel

pursuant to the disclosure order of the state trial court and that

the identity of witness B was disclosed to petitioner’s current

counsel on November 28, 2000, in the state habeas proceedings. 

Petitioner’s counsel did not contest these representations. 

Petitioner has not made a showing of good cause for

additional discovery in this regard and this request will be denied. 

Request 64: Information Regarding William Acker’s Informant

Activities While Incarcerated

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 60 of 86
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

61

In requests 64 through 73 petitioner seeks various

information regarding a prosecution witness by the name of William

Acker as relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. However,

petitioner’s counsel has requested that these requests be “withheld”

or that the court hold them “in abeyance” since the materials sought

relate only to the penalty phase of petitioner’s trial.

Respondent objects to the requests as overbroad, not

seeking relevant evidence since Acker did not testify at petitioner’s

trial, and on the grounds that the information sought is protected by

the official information and informant identity privileges. (Resp.

to Mot. for Discovery at 15-16; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at

19-21.)

In light of petitioner’s expressed desire to withhold these

requests, each of them will be denied at this time without prejudice. 

Request 65: Acker’s Rap Sheet

Denied without prejudice. See Request 64, above.

Request 66: Acker’s Parole Board Files

Denied without prejudice. See Request 64, above.

Request 67-69: Law Enforcement Efforts on Behalf of Acker

Denied without prejudice. See Request 64, above.

Request 70: Acker’s Disciplinary Reports

Denied without prejudice. See Request 64, above.

Request 71: Acker’s Informant Activities Prior to August 17, 1980

Denied without prejudice. See Request 64, above.

Request 72: Details of Acker’s Incarceration Between August 17, 1980

and the Conclusion of Petitioner’s Trial

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 61 of 86
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

62

Denied without prejudice. See Request 64, above.

Request 73: Copies of All Statements Given By Acker Concerning

Petitioner and Information Regarding Unrecorded Statements

Denied without prejudice. See Request 64, above.

Request 74: Information and Documents Regarding Dr. Welch

Through this request petitioner seeks all information and

documents regarding Dr. Welch including any information regarding

efforts by the Attorney General’s Office to revoke his medical

license, any interaction between the prosecutor in petitioner’s case

and those involved in the revocation of Dr. Welch’s medical license,

any information reflecting conversations with Dr. Welch regarding

benefits he might receive presumably in exchange for his cooperation

in petitioner’s prosecution. Petitioner’s counsel again argues (see

Request 6) that: (1) Dr. Welch was intoxicated at the time of the

assaults at issue and provided negligent medical treatment to victim

Gardner thereby contributing to Gardner’s death and (2) the trial

prosecutor suppressed and delayed de-licensing proceedings against

Dr. Welch until after petitioner’s trial. (RTII at 30-31.) With

respect to this second prong of the request, petitioner’s counsel

claims that within a week after petitioner’s sentencing the Attorney

General’s Office dismissed the charge relating to Dr. Welch’s medical

license. (Id.) Petitioner’s counsel asserts that the facts suggest

that Deputy Attorney General Kirk had undisclosed interactions with

the medical licensing side of his office on behalf of Dr. Welch to

petitioner’s detriment. (Id.) 

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 62 of 86
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

63

Respondent objects to the request as overbroad and as

seeking evidence not relevant to these proceedings. (Resp. to Mot.

for Discovery at 17; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 19-22.)

Respondent’s objection is only well-taken in part. 

Petitioner has not made a sufficient showing of good cause in support

of his request for additional discovery of the proceedings against

Dr. Welch’s license beyond the public records that would be available

to anyone including petitioner. However, to the extent petitioner

requests any information regarding interaction between Deputy

Attorney General Kirk and those in the Attorney General’s Office

handling the licensing proceedings involving Dr. Welch, the request

is neither overbroad nor seeks information that is irrelevant to

these proceedings. Accordingly, the request will be granted in part

and respondent shall provide any information regarding interaction

between Deputy Attorney General Kirk or others acting on his behalf

and those in the Attorney General’s Office handling the licensing

proceedings involving Dr. Welch as well as any evidence of discussion

of benefits to be accorded to Dr. Welch in connection with his

cooperation in the prosecution relating to petitioner. 

Request 75: All CDC Files for Witnesses Cade, Long, Hayes, Rooks,

Richardson and Yacotis

Petitioner seeks the CDC and Department of Health files for

prisoner witnesses Cade, Long, Hayes, Rooks, Richardson and Yacotis. 

Petitioner characterizes the information he seeks as critical to his

claim of prosecutorial misconduct in that it will reveal the

information available to the prosecutor in 1980 which allowed him to

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 63 of 86
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

64

assess the vulnerability of each witness to threats and rewards. 

Such information, petitioner argues, allowed the prosecution to

accomplish its goal of encouraging the witnesses to testify in the

manner the prosecution desired. At the hearing on the motion

petitioner’s counsel conceded that this request is duplicative of

Request 14 as to witnesses Cade, Long, Hayes and Rooks. Thus, this

request merely seeks the same information with respect to Richardson

and Yacotis as is sought in Request 14 as to Cade, Long, Hayes and

Rooks.

Respondent counters that this discovery request is compound

and calls for production of information subject to the official

information privilege. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 17; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 22.) Respondent also suggests by

reference that the requested information with respect to Yacotis has

previously been provided to petitioner in the state habeas

proceedings. (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 22, Ex. 14.) 

As with Request 14, addressed above, petitioner’s request

for access to the complete CDC and Department of Health files of 

Richardson and Yacotis is a close one. Nonetheless, for the reasons

set forth above with respect to Request 14 the court finds good cause

exists for some additional discovery in this area and the request

will be granted in part. To ensure that potentially applicable

privileges are accorded adequate consideration, the files in question

shall be produced for in camera review by this court. Whether

further disclosure is required will be addressed by this court with

the parties following that review. 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 64 of 86
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

22 In light of the concession, it is difficult to understand

why counsel brought the duplicative request in the first instance. 

65

Request 76: Information Regarding the Prosecution’s Involvement in

the 1981 Alameda County Case Against Witness Hayes

In this request petitioner seeks information regarding any

involvement the prosecution team had in the Alameda County case

brought against witness Hayes in 1981, including any contacts with

the prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, Parole Board or CDC with

respect to Hayes. Petitioner asserts that the requested information

is relevant to his prosecutorial misconduct claim. Most importantly,

petitioner’s counsel conceded at the second hearing on this motion 

that this request is duplicative of others already addressed above.22 

Understandably, respondent contends that the request is

duplicative and that to the extent it exists, petitioner has been

provided the requested information in the state habeas proceedings.

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 17; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery

at 23.)

Petitioner’s Request 13 seeking information regarding

consideration, assistance or rewards given by authorities to any

prisoner witness in petitioner’s case has been granted. The

materials sought here, as belatedly conceded by petitioner’s counsel,

fall within Request 13. Accordingly, as a separate request this

discovery request will be denied as duplicative.

/////

/////

///// 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 65 of 86
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

66

Request 77: Information Regarding Law Enforcement Contact with

Witness Long After His November 1999 Interview

Petitioner seeks information regarding any contact law

enforcement authorities had with Long after Deputy Attorney General

Lee interviewed him in November of 1999 and told him that she or

someone else would return to talk to him further. Petitioner

suggests that as a result of such contacts Long, who had been

cooperative with petitioner’s counsel up until that point, refused to

testify in the state habeas proceedings. Petitioner argues that

despite the suggestion to the contrary, respondent has never made a

clear representation regarding whether Long was contacted by

authorities again after the November 1999 interview. (Reply filed

June 4, 2004 at 21.) The court agrees.

Respondent has no objection to this request but notes that

to the extent it exists, petitioner has been provided the requested

information in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for

Discovery at 17-18; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 23, Ex. 14.)

The court has reviewed the exhibit cited by respondent and

it contains no substantive information addressing an interview of

Long after November of 1999. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery,

Ex. 14.) Deputy Attorney General Lee’s cover letter of November 3,

2000, cited by counsel for respondent, merely states “I have no

personal knowledge regarding interviews of Rayborn Long in 1980"

followed by a general disclaimer. That response to this simple 

/////

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 66 of 86
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

23 The personal knowledge of a particular Deputy Attorney

General is irrelevant in these matters. The question is, has a

complete and thorough internal inquiry been conducted so that a

representative of the State can in good faith and as an officer of

the court represent that an interview of Long after November 1999

occurred or not and, if it did occur, what documentation of that

interview exists today.

67

inquiry is neither complete nor sufficient.23 Petitioner’s request

for discovery in this regard will be granted. 

Request 78: Information Regarding Law Enforcement Contact with Lt.

DuQuesney After Defense Counsel’s Contact on February 16, 1996

Petitioner seeks information regarding any contact by law

enforcement authorities on behalf of the Attorney General’s Office 

with Lt. Peter DuQuesney after petitioner’s counsel spoke with him on

February 16, 1996. Petitioner suggests that such contacts occurred

because Lt. DuQuesney had cooperated with petitioner’s counsel up

until that point and thereafter refused to do so. Petitioner’s

counsel also argues that when he attempted to inquire into this

matter in the state habeas proceedings the Deputy Attorney General

objected and the objection was sustained.

Respondent contends that to the extent it exists,

petitioner has been provided the requested information in the state

habeas proceedings and that, in any event, petitioner had the

opportunity to question Lt. DuQuesney regarding this matter in the

state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 18; Resp.

to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 23, Ex. 14.)

The court has reviewed the exhibit cited by respondent and

although it contains a brief mention of Lt. DuQuesney it does not

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 67 of 86
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

68

respond to this inquiry. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex.

14.) Petitioner’s request for discovery in this regard will be

granted. Respondent shall answer, what is in essence an

interrogatory, by stating whether anyone on behalf of the Attorney

General’s Office communicated with Lt. DuQuesney after February 16,

1996, and, if so, to provide any record of the substance of those

communications including whether there was any comment made on

DuQuesney’s communicating with counsel for petitioner.

Request 79: Identity of and Information Regarding Any Witness

Identifying Someone Other Than Petitioner as the Perpetrator

Petitioner seeks the identity of any witness who identified

anyone other than petitioner as the person involved in the assault on

Gardner as well as the circumstances of any such identification as

relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner argues

that the fact that respondent suppressed information regarding

prisoner Alexander Vichi’s identification of Menefield and someone

other than petitioner as the assailants suggests good cause for the

granting of this discovery request.

Respondent contends that the request is overbroad in that

many witnesses identified Menefield as the assailant and that, in any

event to the extent such information exists, petitioner has been

provided the requested information in the state habeas proceedings.

(Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 18; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery

at 23.) However, respondent does not cite to any document produced

in the state habeas proceedings as he has done many times with

respect to the requests addressed above. Perhaps this is

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 68 of 86
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

69

respondent’s way of stating that since no documents have been

produced reflecting the identification of someone other than

petitioner as the second assailant, petitioner is safe to assume that

none exist in respondent’s possession. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for

Discovery, Ex. 14) (Deputy Attorney General Lee representing that she

has “looked for and have not found any information that Mr. Vichi

identified a person other than Larry Roberts as Gardner’s

assailant”). The response to this specific request is vague and

insufficient. 

Petitioner’s request for discovery in this regard will be

granted. Respondent shall produce any information in its possession

which reflects the identification of someone other than petitioner as

Menefield’s accomplice in the assault on Gardner. If it is

respondent’s position that the state has no such information,

respondent shall affirmatively make that representation. 

Request 80: Information And Documents Regarding Contacts By the

Prosecution with Witness Vichi

Petitioner seeks disclosure of information and documents

related to contacts by law enforcement with prisoner Alexander Vichi

during the investigation of this case as relevant to his claim of

prosecutorial misconduct. 

Respondent contends that to the extent such information

exists petitioner has been provided with it in the state habeas

proceedings and that, in any event, petitioner’s counsel had the

opportunity to question Vichi and the state investigators on this

subject at the evidentiary hearing held in connection with the state

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 69 of 86
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

70

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 18; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 23.)

The court has reviewed the exhibit cited by respondent and

although it contains a brief mention of Vichi it does not respond to

this inquiry. (See Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery, Ex. 14.) 

Rather, that exhibit reflects only that as of November 3, 2000,

Deputy Attorney General Lee represented to petitioner’s counsel that

she could not locate any information that Mr. Vichi identified a

person other than Larry Roberts as Gardener’s assailant. (Id.) That

representation does not address whether law enforcement had contact

with Vichi during their investigation. 

 Petitioner’s request for discovery in this regard will be

granted. Respondent shall state whether law enforcement had contact

with Vichi during their investigation and, if so, shall produce any

documents reflecting those contacts as well as the substance of any 

communications that took place with Vichi.

Request 81: All Reports Regarding Witness Moore

Petitioner seeks all information and documentation

reflecting reports related to a Joseph Moore as relevant to his claim

of prosecutorial misconduct. Apparently a hearsay statement

attributable to Moore was admitted into evidence at trial only as to

petitioner’s co-defendant Menefield. However, petitioner argues that

in his closing argument the prosecutor improperly argued to the jury

that the hearsay statement incriminated petitioner and that in this

way a Bruton violation occurred. In a leap, petitioner then argues

that he should be able to discover all information relating to Moore.

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 70 of 86
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

71

Respondent objects to the request as seeking evidence not

relevant to these proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 18;

Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 24.) The objection is welltaken.

Petitioner has failed to address and has not adequately

established the relevance of the information sought to his claim of

prosecutorial misconduct. The claim of Bruton error stands or falls

on its own merit. Discovery is not necessary to adequately present

that claim. Petitioner has not made a showing of good cause and this

discovery request will be denied. 

Request 82: Tape Recordings and Accurate Transcripts of All

Interviews of Witnesses Long, Cade, Hayes and Richardson

The request speaks for itself. Petitioner claims that the

prosecution team adulterated tape recordings and prepared and

produced false transcripts of the interviews of these witnesses. In

particular, petitioner claims that it is clear from the state habeas

proceedings that there is another version of a transcript of

interview with witness Richardson in which Richardson exonerates

petitioner of the assault by stating that petitioner was not even

present. Petitioner claims that both he and the judge presiding over

the evidentiary hearing in state court saw this version of the

transcript but that it was thereafter suppressed once again. 

Petitioner also asserts that certain parts of tape recordings have

never been produced and that it has been suggested that parts of

recordings were destroyed in the process of copying them. Petitioner

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 71 of 86
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

24 Petitioner has made a specific request with respect to the

tape and transcript of the interview of witness Richardson referred

to above. The court will address that specific request below.

72

essentially argues that these circumstances call into question the

veracity of all recordings and transcripts produced by respondent.

Respondent takes the position once again that to the extent

it exists, petitioner has been provided the requested information in

the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 18;

Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 23, Exs. 14-16.) At the second

hearing on this motion counsel for respondent addressed the alleged

alternate version of the Richardson interview and stated, once again,

that there is only one transcript of this interview. Counsel also

argued that with respect to all the transcripts and recordings,

petitioner has been provided with complete and accurate versions of

the same.

With respect to this general request for accurate

recordings and transcripts of all interview conducted of witnesses

Long, Cade, Hayes and Richardson, petitioner has failed to establish

good cause for the court to require further discovery. Respondent’s

counsel has represented that complete and accurate tape recordings

and transcripts have already been produced. Absent a specific

showing to the contrary, which has not been made with respect to this

general request24, there is no basis upon which to question that

representation and thus no grounds for granting further discovery. 

Accordingly, this request is denied. 

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 72 of 86
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

73

Request 83: Information Regarding The Number of Times Witness Long

Was Interviewed Between August 19, 1980 and September 2, 1980

Petitioner makes this request because, he argues, at the

evidentiary hearing held in connection with the state habeas

petition, Officer Glenn testified that there was more than one

interview (presumably of Long) on a particular date. Petitioner asks

that respondent clarify how many times Long was interviewed and to

identify the officers conducting the interviews on those dates. He

claims the information is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial

misconduct.

Respondent objects on the grounds that petitioner has been

provided this information in the state habeas proceedings. (Resp. to

Mot. for Discovery at 19; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 24 &

Ex. 14.) The objection is well-taken but the request will also be

denied for a more elementary reason.

Petitioner has failed to address, let alone establish, the

relevance of the information sought in this request to his claim of

prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner has not stated why this

particular bit of information is necessary to adequately present that

claim. Moreover, this is another example of counsel repeatedly

rephrasing basically the same discovery requests in lesser or greater

detail. This request is indeed duplicative of others addressed above

with respect to Long. (See Requests 2, 14, 33-35, 75 and 82.) 

Petitioner has not made a showing of good cause and this discovery 

request will be denied.

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 73 of 86
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

74

Request 84: Copies of All Documents Sealed At Request of Prosecution

Petitioner seeks discovery of all documents that were filed

under seal in the state trial court proceedings at the request of the

prosecution. This broad and unspecific request is made on the

grounds that the documents might reveal “particular transactions that

may have deprived [petitioner] of his constitutional rights.” (Reply

filed June 4, 2004 at 23.) Petitioner claims that the requested

information is relevant to his prosecutorial misconduct claim and is

necessary so his counsel can review the documents and request, if

appropriate, that they be unsealed.

 Respondent objects on the grounds that petitioner has

failed to establish any nexus between the information sought and any

claim in his petition. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 19; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 24.) Moreover, respondent notes that any

such documents are currently under seal by virtue of a state court

order. (Id.)

Petitioner has again failed to establish the relevance of

the information sought in this request to his claim of prosecutorial

misconduct. His request can be accurately characterized as a fishing

expedition. Petitioner’s counsel simply wishes to review sealed

documents in the hope that they may contain evidence in support of

some constitutional claim. Because petitioner has not made a showing

of good cause, this discovery request will be denied. 

Request 85: Accurate and Complete Transcript of the August 25, 1980

Interview of Witness Richardson

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 74 of 86
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

75

Here, petitioner presents a more specifically focused

request for the version of the August 25, 1980, transcript of the

Richardson interview he claims exist. (See Request 82, above.) As

discussed above, petitioner’s counsel claims that at the hearing in

connection with the state habeas proceedings the presiding judge

paraphrased a transcript in which Richardson stated that petitioner

was not involved in the assault and that prosecution witness Cade was

also not present. Petitioner wants the accurate tape and the

accurate transcript (i.e. one that reflects such a statement by

Richardson) produced as relevant to his claim of prosecutorial

misconduct in both the trial and habeas proceedings.

Respondent’s counsel represents petitioner has received a

copy of the only transcript that exists of the August 25, 1980

Richardson interview. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 19; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 24.) However, respondent suggests that

if any question remains as to whether another version of this

transcript ever existed, it could be addressed by a limited

evidentiary hearing on this specific issue.

The court is not anxious to conduct such a hearing. 

Nonetheless, given the seriousness of the allegation and the

likelihood that absent a final resolution by this court, the issue

will no doubt continue to be the source of contention, the discovery

request will be granted in part. A limited evidentiary hearing will

be conducted at a time to be determined at the next status conference

held in this case. The evidentiary hearing will be limited to the

question of whether a second version (i.e. one containing the

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 75 of 86
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

76

statements attributed to Richardson alleged by petitioner) of the

transcript from the August 25, 1980 Richardson interview did exist

and, if so, what became of it. 

Request 86: Information Regarding Any Prosecution Contacts With

Federal Authorities Regarding Witness Cade

Petitioner seeks this information claiming that no such

information has ever been provided to the defense and that the

information is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct.

Respondent again contends that to the extent such

information exists petitioner has been provided it in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 19; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 25, Exs. 5 & 6.)

This request is duplicative of Requests 13, 17 and 18

addressed above. Moreover, petitioner has made no attempt to link

the requested discovery to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. 

Were the court to speculate, it may be that petitioner’s counsel

hopes to find evidence that the prosecution provided undisclosed

consideration to Cade by interceding on his behalf with federal

authorities for his testimony. If so, such evidence will be

disclosed in the response ordered as to Request 13. Accordingly,

this separate discovery request will be denied. 

Request 87: Information Regarding Prosecution Facilitating Contact

Between Witness Cade and A Girlfriend

Petitioner seeks this information claiming that no such

information has ever been provided to the defense and that the

information is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. 

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 76 of 86
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

25 The vast majority of pages contained within the copy of

Exhibit 6 submitted by respondent to the court are completely

illegible.

77

Petitioner argues that discovery previously provided indicated that

Cade was attempting to negotiate contact with his girlfriend as part

of the consideration for his testimony and that the response from the

trial prosecutor was equivocal. Counsel asserts that Cade declined

to answer questions on this subject at the state court evidentiary

hearing. Petitioner’s counsel also argue that in a letter made

available after the close of testimony in the state habeas proceeding

Cade asked the prosecutor to thank a correctional officer for “the

gifts.” On this basis petitioner’s counsel asserts that good cause

exists for further discovery.

Respondent again contends that to the extent such

information exists it has been provided to petitioner in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 19; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 25, Exs. 5 & 6.) Counsel for respondent

also argues that petitioner’s counsel had the opportunity to question

both Cade and the trial prosecutor regarding this subject in the

state habeas proceedings.

The court has reviewed the exhibits cited by respondent’s

counsel. To the extent they are legible25 those exhibits contain no

apparent reference to the prosecution facilitating contact between 

Cade and a girlfriend. Once again the court is placed in the

position of having to interpret the response. Is respondent

suggesting that because there is no reference in previously provided

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 77 of 86
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

78

discovery to such an action being taken by the prosecution team, no

such action was taken? The response is unnecessarily vague. 

Good cause having been shown, petitioner’s request for

discovery in this regard will be granted. Respondent shall state

whether anyone on behalf of the prosecution facilitated contact

between Cade and a girlfriend and, if so, shall produce any documents

reflecting those efforts. 

Request 88: Information Regarding Any Undisclosed Contacts Between

the Prosecution and Witnesses Cade, Rooks, Long and Hayes

Petitioner seeks information regarding previously

undisclosed contacts between the prosecution and these four prisoner

witnesses claiming that such information is relevant to his claim of

prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner argues that after the close of

testimony in the state habeas proceeding, letters from Cade and Hayes

to the prosecutors were made available to petitioner for the first

time. Those letters, petitioner claims, demonstrate that these

witnesses were made promises and given benefits by the prosecution in

exchange for their testimony that was never disclosed to the defense. 

On this basis petitioner’s counsel asserts that good cause exists for

further discovery in this area.

Respondent again contends that to the extent such

information exists petitioner has been provided it in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 19; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 25.) In this regard, counsel for

respondent specifically represents that “[a]ll known copies of

correspondence or other interaction was disclosed during the state

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 78 of 86
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

79

habeas proceeding.” (Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 25.) 

Respondent’s counsel has previously represented that a thorough

search for such information has been conducted. Respondent will be

held to these representations. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 89: Information Regarding Gifts Provided to Any Inmate

Witnesses

Petitioner seeks this information claiming that no such

information has ever been provided to the defense and that the

information is relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. 

Petitioner’s counsel again argues that in a letter made available

after the close of testimony in the state habeas proceeding, Cade

asked the prosecutor to thank correctional officer Hartman for “the

gifts.” On this basis petitioner’s counsel asserts that good cause

exists for further discovery regarding any gifts provided by the

prosecution to the prisoner witnesses.

Respondent merely states that to the extent such

information exists petitioner has been provided it in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 19; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 25, Exs. 5 & 6.) 

As noted above, the court has reviewed the exhibits cited

by respondent’s counsel and finds them to be in large part illegible.

Moreover, to the extent legible they contain no apparent reference to

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 79 of 86
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

80

gifts provided by the prosecution to prisoner witnesses. The

response is, again, unnecessarily vague. 

Good cause having been shown, petitioner’s request for

discovery in this regard will be granted. Respondent shall state

whether anyone on behalf of the prosecution provided gifts of any

kind to the prisoner witnesses who testified at petitioner’s trial

and, if any gifts were given, shall produce any documents reflecting

the nature of those gifts.

Request 90: Information Regarding All Contacts with Witness Hayes

After His Arrest in the Fall of 1981

Petitioner seeks information regarding any contacts between

the prosecution and Hayes after he was arrested in Alameda County in

the fall of 1981 claiming that such information is relevant to

petitioner’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Petitioner argues

that after the close of testimony in the state habeas proceeding two

letters from Hayes to the prosecutors were made available to

petitioner for the first time. Those letters, petitioner claims,

demonstrate that Hayes was visited by the prosecution during this

time period and was made promises of further benefits in exchange for

his testimony. On this basis petitioner’s counsel asserts that good

cause exists for further discovery in this area.

Respondent again contends that to the extent such

information exists petitioner has been provided it in the state

habeas proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 20; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 25, Ex. 14.) The court has reviewed the

exhibit cited by respondent. That exhibit is the November 3, 2000

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 80 of 86
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

81

letter from Deputy Attorney General Lee to petitioner’s counsel

regarding information being provided in connection with the state

habeas proceedings. The only reference in the letter to interviews

or contacts by the prosecution with Hayes in the fall of 1981 or

thereafter is a September 28, 1982 interview. The only

interpretation the court can give the response is that this was the

only contact between the prosecution and Hayes during or after the

fall of 1981. Respondent will be held to these representations. 

Petitioner has not demonstrated good cause in support of

his request for additional discovery in this regard and this request

will be denied. 

Request 91: Information Regarding The Informant Activities Of Witness

Hayes Prior to Petitioner’s Trial

Petitioner makes this request because, he argues, Hayes was

known as a “snitch” in prison and he should have been provided access

to information regarding those informant activities to impeach Hayes

at trial. Petitioner’s counsel does not link this discovery request

to any claim in the second amended petition.

Respondent objects to the request as seeking evidence not

relevant to these proceedings and as calling for the production of

information protected by the official information and informant

identity privileges. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 20; Resp. to

Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 25.)

Petitioner has failed to address, let alone establish, the

relevance of the information sought in this request to any claim set

forth in the petition pending before this court. Because petitioner

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 81 of 86
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

82

has not made a showing of good cause, this discovery request will be

denied.

Request 92: Access to the Prosecution’s Trial and Investigative Files

Petitioner seeks discovery of the prosecution’s entire

trial and investigative file subject to protective orders as

necessary to protect work-product materials. This broad request is

made on the grounds that the prosecutorial misconduct (including

suppression of and tampering with evidence and the suborning of

perjury) was so egregious that the only way for counsel to determine

the details and extent of that misconduct is to have access to entire

prosecution file. (Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 26.) Finally,

petitioner argues that respondent should stipulate to the request if

respondent’s intent, as previously stated, is to clear the name of

the trial prosecutor.

Respondent declines the suggestion of a stipulated

production and objects to the request on the grounds that it is

overbroad, calls for production of protected work-product material

and because petitioner has failed to establish any nexus between any

specific information sought and any claim in his petition. (Resp. to

Mot. for Discovery at 20; Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 25.) 

Respondent’s objections are well-taken. Petitioner’s

request for access to the entire prosecution file can be accurately

characterized as a fishing expedition. Petitioner’s counsel simply

wishes to review that file in the hope that it may contain evidence

in support of some constitutional claim. In addition, specific,

relevant information contained within the prosecution file, to the

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 82 of 86
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

83

extent it exists, has been ordered produced herein. Because

petitioner has not made a showing of good cause in support of this

overly broad discovery request it will be denied.

Request 92A: Access to Specific Documents In the Prosecution’s Trial 

File

Apparently in the alternative to Request 92 addressed

above, petitioner seeks discovery of seven specified portions of the

prosecution’s trial file as described in an index of that file

produced in connection with the evidentiary hearing held in the state

habeas proceedings. Petitioner asserts that respondent has no

objection to the request except to the extent it calls for production

of work product materials. (Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 27.) 

Respondent agrees that to the extent any of the specified

documents have not been previously produced they will be produced to

the extent they exist, except for a summary prepared of an interview

of witness Cade on July 29, 1981 which contains work product

material. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 21; Resp. to Supp. Mot.

for Discovery at 26.)

Accordingly, the request for discovery will be granted to

the extent agreed to by respondent as set forth above.

Request 93: All Exculpatory Information

Petitioner seeks discovery of all exculpatory information.

This broad request is made on the grounds that such information is

relevant to petitioner’s prosecutorial misconduct claim.

Respondent contends that any exculpatory information that

exists has been provided to petitioner in the state trial and habeas

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 83 of 86
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

84

proceedings. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 21; Resp. to Supp. Mot.

for Discovery at 26.)

The request is overbroad. Any specific, relevant

information that would fall within this request has been ordered

produced herein. Because petitioner has not made a showing of good

cause in support of this overly broad discovery request it will be

denied.

Request 94: Personnel Files of Officers Horton, Hartman, Gard, Glenn,

Bennett and DuQuesney and Deputy Attorney General Kirk

Petitioner seeks discovery of the personnel files of the

trial prosecutor as well as those of the investigators who worked on

the case for the prosecution. He does so on the grounds that he has

alleged that the prosecutor and the investigators engaged in serious

misconduct, thus placing their credibility at issue. Petitioner

argues that he should be allowed to discover whether those involved

had a history of engaging in similar misconduct. Finally, he asserts

that he was not allowed to explore this area in the state habeas

proceedings. (Reply filed June 4, 2004 at 27-28.)

Respondent opposes the request as overbroad, seeking

evidence not relevant to these proceedings and as calling for the

production of information protected by the official information and

informant identity privileges. (Resp. to Mot. for Discovery at 21;

Resp. to Supp. Mot. for Discovery at 26-7.) In addition, respondent

asserts that to the extent the request calls for information that may

be relevant to any claim in the petition, it has been provided to

/////

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 84 of 86
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

85

petitioner through the testimony of the identified witnesses in the

state habeas proceedings.

Petitioner has not made a showing of good cause to believe

that evidence of prior misconduct exists in the personnel files in

question nor that if such evidence did exist, that it would somehow

be relevant to his claim of prosecutorial misconduct in connection

with his prosecution. Because petitioner has not made a showing of

good cause in support of this discovery request it will be denied.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner’s motion for discovery and amended

supplementary motion for discovery are granted in part and denied in

part;

2. Petitioner’s discovery requests 7, 47 and 57 have been

withdrawn by petitioner; 

3. Petitioner’s discovery requests 2, 8 (in part), 9, 10,

13, 14 (in part), 15 (in part), 22 (in part), 27, 33, 34, 38, 43, 49,

56, 58 (in part), 59, 60 (in part), 61, 74 (in part), 75 (in part),

77, 78, 79, 80, 85 (in part), 87, 89, and 92A (in part) are granted;

4. Petitioner’s discovery requests 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12,

16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36,

37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 62, 63,

64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88,

90, 91, 92, 93 and 94 are denied;

5. Respondent shall provide the discovery ordered herein

to petitioner and submit the material designated herein for in camera

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 85 of 86
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

86

review to the court within thirty (30) days of the date of this

order; and

6. This case is set for status conference on November 17,

2005, at 1:30 p.m.

DATED: September 29, 2005.

DAD:lg

ddad1/orders.capital/roberts.discovery.0254

Case 2:93-cv-00254-DAD-DB Document 305 Filed 09/29/05 Page 86 of 86