Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01565/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-01565-4/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

JUAN GONZALES,

Petitioner,

 v.

C. A. TERHUNE,

Respondent. /

No. C 03-01565 TEH

ORDER

Petitioner has filed an amended request for certificate of appealability. He seeks a

certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) with respect to the following

four grounds:

1. The District Court erred in rejecting petitioner’s claim under Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

2. The District Court erred in refusing to order discovery regarding the state’s

contacts with Greg Sakasegawa.

3. The District Court erred in rejecting petitioner’s claim that there was

insufficient evidence that he aided and abetted the shooters prior to the shooting.

4. The District court erred in rejecting petitioner’s claim that his constitutional

rights were violated when the trial court (a) did not instruct the jury that it could not

convict him as an aider and abettor if he aided the shooters only after the shooting had

occurred and (b) refused to instruct the jury on the defense theory of accessory after the

fact. 

Case 3:03-cv-01565-TEH Document 49 Filed 01/17/07 Page 1 of 2
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

A certificate of appealability may only issue if the applicant has made a

“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

The Court concludes that this standard is satisfied with respect to the first Brady issue. 

Accordingly, the Court hereby certifies the following ground for appeal under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253: “The District Court erred in rejecting petitioner’s claim under Brady v.

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2007 

THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT

JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-01565-TEH Document 49 Filed 01/17/07 Page 2 of 2