Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00543/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00543-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS WINTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-0543 FCD EFB P 

vs.

A.K. SCRIBNER,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this action seeking a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He challenges the constitutionality of his 2001 convictions

and resulting sentence for robbery and first degree felony murder with special circumstances. 

Petitioner contends that (1) the trial court violated his constitutional rights by admitting at trial a

statement from petitioner that was obtained during a custodial interrogation in which he was not

properly advised of his right to remain silent and in which his attempts to stop the interrogation

were ignored, (2) the evidence admitted at trial was insufficient to support each of his

convictions, and (3) the jury was improperly instructed at trial regarding the requisite

concurrence of petitioner’s criminal acts and intent. As noted below, the court has determined

that supplemental briefing in necessary. Additionally, in light of the complexity of the legal

issues involved, the court has determined that the interests of justice require appointment of

Case 2:05-cv-00543-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 03/10/10 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

2

counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); see also Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th

Cir. 1983).

Upon review of petitioner’s habeas petition, the court finds that additional briefing on

specific issues would be of material assistance to the court. Specifically, the court requests

briefing from each party on the following issues:

a. Whether one or more of petitioner’s pre-Miranda statements amounted to an

invocation of the right to remain silent, and if so, whether petitioner exhausted any such claim; 

b. Whether one of more of petitioner’s post-Miranda statements amounted to an

invocation of the right to remain silent;

c. Whether petitioner’s Miranda waiver and/or post-Miranda statements were

involuntary; and

d. Whether petitioner’s post-Miranda statements were inadmissible under Oregon v.

Elstad, 470 U.S. 298 (1985) and/or Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Federal Defender is appointed to represent petitioner.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this order on

David Porter, Assistant Federal Defender.

3. Petitioner’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for copies

of documents in the file.

4. On or before May 7, 2010, petitioner shall file a brief addressing the issues outlined

above.

5. On or before May 28, 2010, respondent shall file a brief addressing the issues outlined

above and responding to any brief filed by petitioner.

////

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-00543-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 03/10/10 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

3

6. On or before June 18, 2010, petitioner may file a response to any brief filed by

respondent.

DATED: March 10, 2010.

Case 2:05-cv-00543-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 3