Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-03706-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID J. CARPENTER,

Petitioner,

v.

ROBERT L. AYERS, Jr., Acting Warden

of California State Prison at San Quentin,

Respondent.

NO. C 98-2444 MMC 

 C-00-3706 MMC

 ORDER RE: PROCEDURES FOR 

 COMPETENCY EVALUATION 

 

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Introduction

Petitioner is a California prisoner who was sentenced to death in two separate proceedings.

Carpenter I (C 98-2444) arises from petitioner’s conviction and death sentence for the first degree

murders, as well as the rape and attempted rape, of two persons, and the attempted murder of a third. 

See People v. Carpenter, 15 Cal. 4th 312 (1997). In Carpenter II, petitioner was separately

convicted and sentenced to death for murdering five persons in Marin County and raping or

attempting to rape three of them. See People v. Carpenter, 21 Cal.4th 1016 (1999). In both capital

habeas petitions, petitioner includes a claim that he is currently incompetent. 

On March 31, 2008, this Court issued an order requiring petitioner’s competency to be

determined in a timely matter. In response, petitioner filed a motion to terminate the competency

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 112 Filed 07/18/08 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Dr. Roesch's curriculum vita is before this Court. 

2 As part of the stipulation, petitioner forgoes his opportunity to nominate any additional

proposed examiners and respondent withdraws his prior nominations of Drs. John T. Dunn and

Daniel A. Martell as potential examiners. 

2

inquiry, which motion was denied by order dated June 19, 2008. Now before the Court is petitioner

and respondent’s joint stipulation as to an examiner and timing of the examination, as well as the

parties’ separate proposals as to the procedures to be utilized in determining petitioner’s

competency. 

Procedures

Having considered the parties' submissions and the applicable statutory and case authority,

the Court hereby ORDERS the following procedures for the evaluation of petitioner's competency.

1. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, the Court appoints Dr. Ronald Roesch1

 as the

single examiner.2

2. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Dr. Roesch may consult with other experts,

provided he signs and is prepared to defend the entirety of his report to the Court. He may not,

however, engage any other expert to interview, test or examine Mr. Carpenter in person without the

prior stipulation of the parties and the prior approval of the Court.

3. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, each party shall provide Dr. Roesch

with any evidence it wishes to be included in the evaluation.

4. The interview and testing sessions conducted by Dr. Roesch shall take place in the

psychological conference room at San Quentin Prison. Absent prior approval by the Court, Mr.

Carpenter should not be transported to another institution for the examination. 

5. The particular tests and procedures used to evaluate Mr. Carpenter's competency will be

determined by Dr. Roesch.

6. The Court denies petitioner’s request to have his counsel present as an observer during

the interview and testing sessions conducted by Dr. Roesch. 

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 112 Filed 07/18/08 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7. Unless required by Dr. Roesch as part of the examination procedures, no audio or video

recording of Dr. Roesch’s interview and testing sessions shall be made. 

8. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, Dr. Roesch, within ninety (90) days of the date

of this Order, shall conduct his examination of Mr. Carpenter and submit a report informing the

Court and the parties of his opinions and the supporting data. 

9. Any report submitted to this Court shall list any materials considered in conducting the

examination, state the clinical basis for any diagnosis, and answer the questions posed infra in

paragraph 11. 

10. Dr. Roesch may conduct whatever examination he deems necessary, in his professional

judgement, to answer the questions listed infra in paragraph 11. 

11. The evaluation by Dr. Roesch shall consider petitioner's competency in accordance with

the following standard: Whether Mr. Carpenter has the capacity to appreciate his position and make

rational choices with respect to proceedings in this Court or, on the other hand, whether he is

suffering from a mental disease, disorder or defect that may substantially affect his capacity. See

Rees v. Peyton, 384 U.S. 312 (1966). In addition, Dr. Roesch shall consider whether petitioner has

the capacity to “communicate rationally with counsel regarding this matter.” Rohan ex rel. Gates v.

Woodford, 334 F.3d 803, 819 (9th Cir. 2003). 

12. This Court will issue a protective order restricting respondent's use of the information

obtained as a result of the competency evaluation. Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this

Order, petitioner's counsel shall draft and submit a proposed protective order, and serve a copy on

respondent, who may submit any objections within seven (7) days of receipt thereof. 

13. Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, petitioner, following the submission of Dr.

Roesch’s report, shall have thirty (30) days to file and serve briefing regarding petitioner’s current

competency and a suggested course of action. Respondent shall have fourteen (14) days following

the filing and service of petitioner’s briefing to file and serve a responsive brief. Petitioner shall

have seven (7) days following the filing and service of respondent’s responsive briefing to file and

serve an optional reply.

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 112 Filed 07/18/08 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

14. If necessary, the Court will schedule a hearing after receipt and review of the parties’

submissions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 18, 2008

 MAXINE M. CHESNEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:00-cv-03706-MMC Document 112 Filed 07/18/08 Page 4 of 4