Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-00152/USCOURTS-caed-2_97-cv-00152-41/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LANCE IAN OSBAND,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-97-0152 WBS KJM

vs. DEATH PENALTY CASE

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., 

 Acting Warden of San Quentin 

 State Prison, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Pursuant to the court’s January 8, 2007 Order, petitioner filed supplemental

summaries of the expected testimony of witnesses Dr. Philip White, Dr. Wendy Saxon, W.J.

Thomas, Richard Williams and Leon Wright. Respondent objects to the supplemental

summaries of the testimony of Thomas, Williams and Wright to the extent they involve Wright’s

interviews with witnesses. Respondent argues petitioner has failed to summarize any nonimpeaching testimony of Wright and any testimony of Thomas and Williams regarding

statements they made to Wright. 

It is unclear from petitioner’s filings whether he intends to introduce any nonimpeaching testimony from Leon Wright. Petitioner states that he will withdraw the offer to

present non-impeachment testimony by Wright regarding his interviews with Thomas and

Williams. Pet’r’s Jan. 10, 2007 Supp. Summ. of Witness Testimony. However, respondent

Case 2:97-cv-00152-KJM-CSK Document 389 Filed 03/09/07 Page 1 of 2
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

claims petitioner may still elicit non-impeaching testimony from Wright regarding his interviews

with other witnesses. In his original witness list petitioner simply described Wright’s potential

testimony as “regarding prior statements of other witnesses.” Pet’r’s Nov. 20, 2006 Witness and

Exhibit Lists. The court will permit non-impeaching testimony of Wright regarding written

statements of other witnesses that have been submitted in this action or that have been described

in other filings herein. While respondent must have sufficient information to prepare for

Wright’s testimony, a specific recitation of his testimony is not necessary. 

With respect to Williams and Thomas, again, they will be permitted to testify to

the subjects described by petitioner. In other words, they may testify to conversations they had

with Wright on any subject petitioner has described in his summary or supplemental summary of

their testimony. 

DATED: March 8, 2007.

osbandpwitness.or

Case 2:97-cv-00152-KJM-CSK Document 389 Filed 03/09/07 Page 2 of 2