Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00013/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00013-2/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

27

28 1 This matter was referred to a United States magistrate

judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B) and Eastern

District Local Rule 72-302.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

MILTON OTIS LEWIS,

NO. CIV. S-02-0013 FCD GGH DP

Petitioner,

v. DEATH PENALTY CASE

JEANNE WOODFORD, Warden, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent.

----oo0oo----

This matter is before the court on petitioner Milton Otis

Lewis’ objections to the findings and recommendations of the

magistrate judge, filed July 12, 2005 (“F&R”), addressing the

penalty phase use of preliminary hearing testimony.1 For the

reasons set forth below, the court adopts the magistrate judge’s

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 65 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 5
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

findings and recommendations and finds that petitioner’s motion

for partial summary judgment is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

The court adopts the factual and procedural background set

forth by the magistrate judge in his findings and

recommendations. (See F&R, filed July 12, 2005, at 2-7.)

STANDARD

When timely objections to findings by a magistrate judge are

filed, the district court must conduct a de novo determination of

the findings and recommendations as to issues of law. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1). The district court may adopt, reject, or modify in

part or in full the findings and recommendations. 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C).

ANALYSIS

1. Confrontation Clause

The court adopts the analysis set forth by the magistrate

judge in denying petitioner’s motion for summary judgment on his

claim of a Sixth Amendment violation. The magistrate judge

correctly found that the use of an unavailable witness’

preliminary hearing testimony, where the witness was subject to

cross-examination, did not violate the Confrontation Clause. In

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court

held that, under the Confrontation Clause, testimonial, out-ofcourt statements of unavailable witnesses required prior crossexamination. The Court did not address the scope of crossexamination. However, in Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U.S. 15, 20

(1985), the Court set out the general rule regarding the scope of

requisite cross-examination: “[T]he Confrontation Clause

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 65 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 5
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

guarantees an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not

cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to

whatever extent, the defense may wish.” This remains the rule

after Crawford. The magistrate judge correctly found that

because the petitioner had an adequate opportunity for crossexamination at the preliminary hearing, the introduction of the

unavailable witness’ testimony did not violate the Confrontation

Clause. 

Petitioner objects to the magistrate judge’s harmless error

analysis. Specifically, petitioner alleges that the magistrate

judge failed to examine the “record as a whole” as required by

Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 638 (1993). The magistrate

judge addressed the possible prejudice suffered by petitioner for

the sake of completeness, even though he correctly found that no

Confrontation Clause violation had occurred. (F&R at 13). 

Because the court finds that the magistrate judge was correct in

his analysis of the Confrontation Clause claim, the court does

not address petitioner’s prejudice objection.

2. Petitioner’s Second and Third Claims

Petitioner alleges a number of violations based upon the

inclusion of the unavailable witness’ testimony, including a

violation of due process, prosecutorial misrepresentation, and

Brady violations. (F&R at 14-21). Petitioner does not address

these claims in his objections to the magistrate judge’s findings

and recommendations. However, after conducting a de novo review

of these issues, the court finds that the magistrate correctly

found that there were no material misrepresentations by the

prosecutor and that there were no Brady violations for failure to

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 65 Filed 10/14/05 Page 3 of 5
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

turn over material exculpatory evidence. (Id. at 16-21). The

magistrate judge also correctly found that none of the alleged

violations prejudiced the petitioner. (Id.)

4. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Petitioner alleges that his trial counsel’s failure to

investigate the unavailable witness’ file constituted ineffective

assistance of counsel. To sustain an ineffective assistance of

counsel claim, petitioner must show: (1) that considering all

circumstances, counsel’s representation fell below an objective

standard of reasonableness; and (2) that counsel’s deficient

performance prejudiced the defense. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984). The magistrate judge correctly found

that, in regard to the investigation of the unavailable witness’

file, trial counsel did not act unreasonably in his

representation of the petitioner and that any error by counsel

did not effect the judgment.

In his objections, petitioner urges the court to consider

other errors made by counsel in the penalty phase that were not

brought in his motion for partial summary judgment. The

petitioner also requests that the court take this motion under

submission until review of all his ineffective assistance of

counsel claims is complete. The court denies petitioner’s

request. Petitioner brought this motion for partial summary

judgment, seeking, in part, a finding of ineffective assistance

of counsel based solely upon the failure to investigate the

witness’ file. This finding was not made. Thus, petitioner’s

motion for summary judgment on this claim is denied. However,

the court will consider this claim in the context of petitioner’s

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 65 Filed 10/14/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

other claims of ineffective assistance of counsel when those

claims are ripe for review by this court.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court adopts the magistrate

judge’s findings and recommendations filed July 12, 2005 and

thereby DENIES petitioner’s motion for partial summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 14, 2005

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:02-cv-00013-TLN-JDP Document 65 Filed 10/14/05 Page 5 of 5