Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500-42/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD F. STANLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-95-1500 FCD GGH P

vs.

EDDIE YLST, Acting DEATH PENALTY CASE

Warden of the California State Prison

at San Quentin,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

The undersigned has recently extended the time in which to receive final merits

briefing. A good portion of that briefing will probably address the competency trial and penalty

phase, primarily for issues heard at evidentiary hearing. However, the undersigned has reached a

tentative view that the jury misconduct issue, aka the Juror Mitts issue, invalidates the

competency trial. If that tentative view holds, the competency verdict could not stand, and by

definition, the penalty phase verdict would probably fall as well. It would therefore make little

sense to task the parties with briefing the other competency trial issues or penalty phase issues,

some of which were complex and difficult, and which would necessitate a great deal of time and

effort to brief.

\\\\\

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 775 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The undersigned is not mandating a deferral of briefing issues; the parties may, at their 1

discretion, defer briefing upon competency trial and penalty phase issues other than the Juror

Mitts issue and the penalty phase “effect” issue. The undersigned is only attempting to save the

parties from briefing issues which the undersigned may never ultimately adjudicate. See Blazak

v. Ricketts, 971 F.2d 1408 (9 Cir. 1992) (district court does not have to adjudicate all issues in a th

capital habeas case which may be mooted by a ruling on one.)

2

No final decision has been made on the Juror Mitts issue, nor on the issue of how

the failure of the competency verdict would affect the penalty phase verdict. These are subjects

which need to be addressed in the final briefing along with guilt phase issues which have not

been adequately briefed already. The final decision on the Juror Mitts and sequellae issues could

change from the tentative view. Nevertheless, in light of the undersigned’s tentative views, the

parties will be given the option to defer briefing on other competency trial and penalty phase

issues.

Accordingly, the parties may defer briefing all competency trial and penalty phase

issues aside from the Juror Mitts issue and the penalty phase “effect” issue described above. In

the event that the undersigned changes his tentative views, the undersigned would, of course,

give the parties the opportunity to brief any competency trial or penalty phase issues deferred.1

DATED: 10/25/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

__________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

stan1500.defer

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 775 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 2