Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00730/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00730-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 - 07cv0730

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRETT ANTHONY MARQUIS,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07-0730-W(LSP)

SECOND ORDER FOR FURTHER

v. BRIEFING

VINCENT J. IARIA,

Respondent.

On October 31, 2007, Respondent filed a Supplemental Answer to

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to the Court’s

Order of August 20, 2007. In the Supplemental Answer, Respondent

discusses the use of subpoenas to compel the victim and the victim’s

mother to produce the victim for trial. The Court, having reviewed

the Supplemental Answer, hereby ORDERS that the parties address the

following:

1. The legal procedures that would have been required to

enforce the subpoenas issued by the trial court, and served on

the victim and the victim’s mother.

(a) Why those legal procedures were not followed in this case;

\\

\\

Case 3:07-cv-00730-W-POR Document 15 Filed 12/04/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 - 07cv0730

2. The legal procedures that would have been required to

enforce the subpoenas issued by the federal court, and served

on the victim and the victim’s mother.

(a) Why those legal procedures were not followed in this case;

3. The legal procedures that would have been required to compel

the victim’s attendance at trial by use of state law material

witness statutes and case law.

(a) Why those legal procedures were not followed in this case;

4. The legal procedures that would have been required to

compel the victim’s attendance at trial by use of federal law

material witness statutes and case law.

(a) Why those legal procedures were not followed in this case;

5. Whether or not the facts related to the victim’s return to

Mexico had he testified at trial, be considered by this Court

in determining whether Petitioner’s rights under the

Confrontation Clause were violated.

6. The factual and legal basis for the County Counsel’s

assertions that:

(a) “no legal entity” could enter Mexico to transport the

victim to the trial court;

(b) the District Attorney could not employ a third party in

Mexico to transport the victim to the trial court;

(c) Assuming that the victim’s mother consented to and approved

of, hiring a third party to help her escort the victim to the

Case 3:07-cv-00730-W-POR Document 15 Filed 12/04/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 - 07cv0730

trial court, would the County Counsel’s assertions change or

remain the same. Please explain why the County Counsel’s

assertions would change or remain the same.

On or before January 14, 2008, Respondent shall file a Second

Supplemental Brief that discusses the topics noted above.

The date by which Petitioner’s Traverse shall be filed is

extended to February 11, 2008. The Traverse shall discuss the

topics noted above, as well as the topics noted in the Order for

Further Briefing, filed on August 20, 2007.

DATED: December 4, 2007

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00730-W-POR Document 15 Filed 12/04/07 Page 3 of 3