Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04064/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-04064-4/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)

---

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

ERIC ANTHONY PARKER,

Petitioner,

 v.

JAMES E. TILTON, Acting Secretary,

California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation,

Respondent. /

No. C 00-04064 WHA

ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO 

SANDBACH DEPOSITION

After reviewing counsel’s objections in the Sandbach deposition taken November 1, 2006,

and made part of the trial record, this Court orders as follows:

1. 15:19–22 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible for limited purpose of showing

information available to the witness and to help explain her testimony of how

she would have approached the case in alternative scenarios.

2. 19:6–16 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible for purposes of considering how

the district attorney would have reacted to petitioner calling Ms. Lakeisha

Wade to the stand.

3. 20:6–8 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible for purposes of considering how

the district attorney would have reacted to petitioner calling Ms. Lakeisha

Wade to the stand.

Case 3:00-cv-04064-WHA Document 97 Filed 12/07/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

4. 21:23–24 Objection overruled. Not leading in this context.

5. 22:12–15 Objection overruled. The question is in leading form but was used to

succinctly summarize prior testimony and is therefore admissible.

6. 23:20–22 Objection overruled. The answer goes to establish information then available

to the witness which would have informed her available strategies if

Ms. Wade had testified.

7. 24:24–25:1 Objection overruled. The answer goes to establish information then available

to the witness which would have informed her available strategies if

Ms. Wade had testified.

8. 26:1–2 Objection Overruled. The answer goes to establish information then available

to the witness which would have informed her available strategies if

Ms. Wade had testified.

9. 27:15–21 Objection overruled. The answer goes to establish information then available

to the witness which would have informed her available strategies if

Ms. Wade had testified.

10. 30:19–20 Objection overruled for reasons previously stated.

11. 31:8–10 Objection Overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

12. 3:10–16 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

13. 34:2–4 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

14. 35:6–8 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

15. 36:23 Objection overruled. Not leading.

16. 40:3–4 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

Case 3:00-cv-04064-WHA Document 97 Filed 12/07/06 Page 2 of 3
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

17. 41:3–12 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

18. 43:6–7 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

19. 46:3–7 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

20. 50:24–51:1 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

21. 51:10–11 Objection overruled. Evidence admissible to show information available to

witness for alternative strategies.

22. 52:19–53:1 Moot objection. This hearing does not consider the plea negotiations.

23. 55:20–22 Moot objection. This hearing does not consider the plea negotiations.

24. 56:14 Moot objection. This hearing does not consider the plea negotiations.

25. 59:9–13 Moot objection. This hearing does not consider the plea negotiations.

26. 70:22 Objection overruled.

27. 77:11 Objection overruled.

28. 78:10 Objection sustained.

29. 82:15 Objection overruled.

Dated: December 7, 2006. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:00-cv-04064-WHA Document 97 Filed 12/07/06 Page 3 of 3