Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-4_00-cv-04036/USCOURTS-arwd-4_00-cv-04036-0/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

---

AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

 Request for subpoenas duces tecum for 1

1. Southwest Arkansas Counseling and Mental Health Center, Inc. 

(hereinafter “Southwest Arkansas Counseling”), requiring production of any

and all records including, by way of illustration only and not limitation,

charts, notes, recorded impressions, graphs, laboratory results,

photographs, computer files or records or other recordings regarding the

court ordered psychological evaluation performed on Petitioner. In

February 1994, Petitioner was sent to Southwest Arkansas Counseling for a

mental health evaluation prior to his capital trial. Materials related to

that evaluation that are currently in the possession of undersigned counsel

include reports of the evaluation of Petitioner by Dr. James R. Blackburn

dated February 11, 1994, and Dr. Marianne Seidel dated February 17, 1994

and some information on the tests administered. The material does not

include Miller County Circuit Court documents, Arkansas State Police

Criminal Investigation Division reports including the transcript of

Petitioner’s statement, Arkansas State Crime Laboratory reports and Miller

County Sheriff’s Department reports reviewed by Drs. Blackburn and Seidel,

as mentioned in their respective reports, when evaluating Petitioner; the

information obtained from Petitioner by Dr. Seidel during her interview

including the information received from Petitioner during the mental status

examination; all of the data, including the raw data, from the Bender

Visual-Motor Gestalt Test, Wide Range Achievement Test - Revised Form,

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised Form, Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory - Short Form, Rotter Incomplete Sentences Blank and

mental status assessment given by Dr. Blackburn...

2. Associated Family Therapists, Texarkana, Texas, requiring production

of any and all records, charts, notes, graphs, photographs, written

impressions, computer files or other recordings maintained regarding the

examination and psychological evaluation of Petitioner. In February 1994

Petitioner was evaluated by Mary Pat Carlson at Associated Family

Therapists prior to his capital trial. Materials related to that

evaluation that are currently in the possession of Petitioner’s counsel

include a report on the evaluation by Mary Pat Carlson dated February 18,

1994. The material received does not include the interview notes, the

data, or the raw data of the psychological tests administered to Petitioner

including the WAIS-R, Rorschach, Projective Drawings, MMPI, and Bender

Gestalt.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

ANDREW SASSER PETITIONER

V. Civil No. 00-CV-4036

LARRY NORRIS, Director of

Arkansas Department of Corrections RESPONDENT

O R D E R

Currently before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to

Conduct Discovery. (Doc. 60.) Petitioner’s counsel states that 1

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 64 Filed 02/13/06 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3. Dr. James Blackburn for any and all records including, by way of

illustration only and not limitation, personal notes, files (computer or

otherwise), recorded impressions, charts, graphs, laboratory results,

tests, data, raw data, photographs or other recordings in the possession

of or under the control of Dr. James Blackburn pertaining or related to the

assessment of Petitioner.

4. Dr. Marianne Seidel for any and all records including, by way of

illustration only and not limitation, personal notes, files (computer or

otherwise), recorded impressions, charts, graphs, laboratory results,

tests, data, raw data, photographs or other recordings in the possession

of or under the control of Dr. Marianne Seidel pertaining or related to the

assessment of Petitioner.

5. Mary Pat Carlson for any and all records including, by way of

illustration only and not limitation, personal notes, files (computer or

otherwise), recorded impressions, charts, graphs, laboratory results,

tests, data, raw data, photographs or other recordings in the possession

of or under the control of Dr. Marianne Seidel pertaining or related to the

assessment of Petitioner. (Doc. 60, pp.6-8.)

2

“discovery is necessary in order that a complete social history may

be prepared which must be accomplished before the necessary expert(s)

can be identified that will be needed to evaluate Petitioner.” (Id.

at 3.) Respondent opposes the motion on the grounds that it is

“premature at this juncture because relief is foreclosed by 28 U.S.C.

§ 2244(b) and (d)...” (Doc. 61, p. 1; see also Doc. 63.) 

Petitioner specifically requests discovery in the form of

subpoenas duces tecum to five entities/individuals for documents

related to previous mental evaluations of Petitioner. Petitioner has

made a sufficient showing of good cause for discovery; specifically

showing that if the facts are fully developed, he may be able to

demonstrate that he is mentally retarded, and thus, entitled to

relief. See Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997). 

There are times in which pre-hearing discovery is essential;

this is one of those times. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 6

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 64 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

3

approve the use of discovery in appropriate cases before an

evidentiary hearing has been granted. This is a case where the

record must be expanded due to no state record existing on the issue

and the lack of non-futile state remedies available to allow

Petitioner to bring his newly created constitutional claim.

Discovery at this point will allow facts to be presented to the Court

to assist with the question of whether an evidentiary hearing is

warranted. The discovery sought is neither overbroad, nor is it

premature. Furthermore, discovery should be liberally granted in

capital cases. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 860 (1994)

(O’Connor, J., concurring in the judgment in part); accord id. at 855

(majority opinion). Upon due consideration, Petitioner’s motion is

GRANTED.

Also before the Court is Respondent’s Motion to Preclude

Discovery, or in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to Conduct

Discovery. (Doc. 61.) For the reasons stated above, Respondent’s

Motion to Preclude Discovery is DENIED.

Respondent also requests leave to conduct discovery.

Specifically, Respondent seeks to discover “all necessary discovery

related to the petitioner’s claim that he is mentally retarded.”

(Doc. 61, p. 6.) Respondent asks for relevant records pertaining to

the petitioner’s educational history, work history, and mental-health

history. Respondent also requests to take a deposition of any expert

witness relied upon by Petitioner, and the ability to have Petitioner

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 64 Filed 02/13/06 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>
AO72A

(Rev. 8/82)

The Court recognizes that Respondent’s discovery request was 2

prematurely made due to the Court’s November 22, 2005 scheduling order 

(Doc.59). 

 

4

examined by “an appropriate mental-health professional for purposes

of conducting any evaluations necessary and helpful to determination

of his claim of mental retardation, if such an examination becomes

necessary.” Id. at 6-7. 

Petitioner objects to Respondent’s Motion for Leave to Conduct

Discovery based on it being overly broad, vague and premature (Doc.

62.), and we agree. The request identifies no document to be

produced, nor is any person named to be deposed. Furthermore, the

request for examination of Petitioner concedes that it is not yet

necessary. See Doc. 61, pp. 6-7. Respondent’s Motion for Leave to

Conduct Discovery is DENIED. However, Respondent will be allowed to

request discovery at a later date. 

2

IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of February 2006. 

 /S/ Harry F. Barnes 

HARRY F. BARNES

United States District Judge

Case 4:00-cv-04036-PKH Document 64 Filed 02/13/06 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: <pageID>