Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01492-25/pdf.json

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

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD J. VIEIRA,

Petitioner,

vs.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, as Acting Warden of

San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:05-cv-1492-AWI

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE RESPONDENT’S

REQUEST TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

This matter is before the Court on the request of Respondent Kevin Chappell, as Acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”), to lodge under seal certain documents. Those

documents pertain to California Penal Code section 987.9 funding requests of the defense attorney

representing Petitioner Richard John Vieira (“Vieira”) at trial. The grounds for the request are two

fold. First, the documents have beenmaintained under sealin the state court; and second,subdivision

(d) of section 987.9 requires it.

The Court is not persuaded that either of these grounds justify sealing the lodgment of the

documents under consideration. This follows from a review of the statutory language ofsubdivision

(d) of section 987.9. In its entirety this subdivision provides:

The confidentiality provided in this section shall not preclude any court from

providing the Attorney General with access to documents protected by this section

when the defendant raises an issue on appeal or collateral review where the recorded

portion of the record, created pursuant to this section, relates to the issue raised.

When the defendant raises that issue, the funding records, or relevant portions

thereof, shall be provided to the Attorney General at the Attorney General’srequest.

In this case, the documentsshallremain under seal and their use shall be limited solely

to the pending proceeding.

05dp1492.ODenyWithoutPrejMo2Seal.Vie.wpd 1

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 125 Filed 05/11/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In Vieira’s case, it is true that the Attorney General (on behalf of the Warden), did in fact

request section 987.9 material from the state courts in order to bolster the Warden’s defense against

Vieira’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. The mention of “any court” in this subdivision (d),

however, does not regulate the conduct of federal courts. Rather, it refers to state courts, which

initially are in possession ofsection 987.9 funding request materials. Section 987.9 does not any way

regulate federal court conduct.

Second, thisCourt maytake note ofthe fact thatsection 987.9 information has been published

in court cases for years within the Ninth Circuit and California District Courts. It is evidence used

to prove and disprove the adequacy of trial counsel’s trial preparation (including consultation with

experts and ancillary service providers). See Ainsworth v. Woodford, 268 F.3d 868, 877 (9th Cir.

2001); Williams v. Calderon, 52 F.3d 1465, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995).

Further, with the exception of trial counsel’s financial information (that is, copies of his law

firm checks for which he sought reimbursement), there is no independent basis to maintain

confidentiality of these documents. The only case remotely analogous is Bittaker v. Woodford, 131

F.3d 715 (9th Cir. 2003).

In that case, the respondent warden sought to discover the petitioner’s trial counsel files to

defend against the petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims. The petitioner objected

because the trial counsel files included attorney work product as well as evidence of attorney-client

communications which could convey inculpatory information. The district court agreed to order the

discovery, as limited by a protective order precluding distribution of materials in state court should

the federal court grant a writ of habeas corpus and the case were retried. Id. at 717. The Ninth

Circuit affirmed, holding that while fairness requires a habeas petitioner to waive the attorney-client

privilege when advancing an ineffective assistance of counsel claim, the waiver should not extend

beyond the federal proceedings into state court should the state conviction or sentence be vacated. 

Id. at 722, 726. The court instructed that when granting the state warden’s discovery request of trial

counsel files, district courts should “enter appropriate orders clearly delineating the contours of the

limited waiver before the commencement of discovery, and strictly police those limitsthereafter.” Id.

at 728. Bittaker is inapposite to Vieira’s case. The issue of inculpatory matters, or even

05dp1492.ODenyWithoutPrejMo2Seal.Vie.wpd 2

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 125 Filed 05/11/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attorney–client communications are not discernible from financial records. Moreover, the issue of

how much the State of California paid Vieira’s first trial counsel would be irrelevant to any issues

raised at a new capital trial were habeas relief granted.

In light of the foregoing, that the Warden’srequest to lodge section 987.9 related documents

is denied without prejudice. If the documents are necessary for the Court’s resolution of Vieira’s

federal habeas corpus petition, the Court will accept public lodgement of the documents, or the

parties may bring additional authorities to the Court for consideration of the sealing request on a

renewed motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated May 9, 2012 

/s/ Anthony W. Ishii

Anthony W. Ishii, Chief

United States District Judge

05dp1492.ODenyWithoutPrejMo2Seal.Vie.wpd 3

Case 1:05-cv-01492-AWI-SAB Document 125 Filed 05/11/12 Page 3 of 3