Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_92-cv-05471/USCOURTS-caed-1_92-cv-05471-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD L. SANDERS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-92-5471-LJO-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Order Following Case

Management Conference and

Setting Next Case Management

Conference

A telephonic Case Management Conference (“CMC”) was held in the case

of Petitioner Ronald L. Sanders (“Sanders”) on March 26, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.,

before the Honorable Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill, to discuss scheduling following

the Ninth Circuit’s remand. The case management plan and budget under

consideration covers Phase IV: Pre-hearing Discovery, Evidentiary Hearing, and

Final Briefing.

Appearances were made telephonically by Eric Jorstad and Nina Rivkind,

counsel for Sanders, and Deputies Jane Kirkland and Brian Alvarez, of the

California Attorney General’s Office, counsel for Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr. 

(‘the State”). The parties filed a Joint Statement setting out their representative

plans for the hearing, but disagreed about the scope of the hearing mandated by

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 180 Filed 03/27/07 Page 1 of 4
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

OCM C4phIVSnd 2

the Ninth Circuit’s remand. Based on the Ninth Circuit’s opinion and argument

by the parties, the Court made the following ruling about the scope of the

evidentiary hearing:

1. It is clear that trial counsel Hoover had a duty to investigate

mitigation evidence, and that he did not investigate because Sanders

did not want to present a penalty defense.

2. The Ninth Circuit found that Hoover’s duty to investigate existed

notwithstanding Sanders’ opposition.

3. Sanders has now presented substantial mitigating evidence in the

form of declarations and documentary evidence. Neither the truth

nor the persuasive value of this evidence had been tested by the

State.

4. The Ninth Circuit opinion appears to have assumed the proffered

mitigation evidence was established when it may or may not have

been contested by the State or substantiated by the record. The State

will have the opportunity to present evidence regarding the truth

and/or strength of the proffered mitigation.

5. The evidentiary hearing will consider two questions about the

proffered mitigation evidence. First, Sanders must show how it

might have been used to convince him to change his mind about not

presenting a penalty defense at trial. Second, if Sanders had

changed his mind, he must address whether the mitigation evidence

would have convinced the jury to sentence him to life without

parole.

The issue of whether Sanders would have changed his mind about

presenting a penalty defense had Hoover investigated and discussed the

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 180 Filed 03/27/07 Page 2 of 4
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

OCM C4phIVSnd 3

potential effect of mitigation with Sanders shall be presented before any other

investigation is undertaken. The second issue, whether the proffered mitigation

evidence would have made a difference in the penalty verdict, is reserved until

after resolution of the first issue. Litigation of the second issue will allow the

State to contest the proffered mitigation evidence and/or to present controverting

evidence.

Sanders requested, and was granted, the opportunity to file for

reconsideration of the Court’s order allowing the State to contest the proffered

mitigating evidence. Any motion for reconsideration shall be filed within ten

court days of the filing of this order. The State may file a response within five 

court days of the filing of the motion for reconsideration. The Court will render a

decision based on the papers, or request a hearing and take further evidence, at

its discretion.

Sanders shall file a revised proposed budget for Phase IV encompassing

only the first issue and based on the above ruling, within ten court days of this

order. The Court will set an ex parte conference regarding the budget after

review of the revised budget filing. Sanders’ budget should include costs for the

preparation of a declaration from Sanders and the possibility of a limited hearing

taking testimony from Sanders by video conference.

It the course of the appeal in this case, the exhibits in support of Sanders’

habeas petition have been lost. The State is ordered to lodge copies of the

exhibits filed with the state habeas petition with the Court. The Court will

arrange for reimbursement of copying expenses if requested.

The next CMC will be held May 14, 2007 at 8:00 a.m., and will discuss the

progress the parties have made in preparing for the first issue of the evidentiary

hearing. The CMC will be held telephonically and the Court will initiate the

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 180 Filed 03/27/07 Page 3 of 4
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

OCM C4phIVSnd 4

conference call.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 27, 2007 

 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

United States District Judge

Case 1:92-cv-05471-JLT Document 180 Filed 03/27/07 Page 4 of 4