Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00684/USCOURTS-caed-1_91-cv-00684-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILBUR JENNINGS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

ROBERT L. AYERS, JR., Warden )

of San Quentin State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CIV. F-91-0684-OWW-P

DEATH PENALTY CASE

Order Referring Case to Selection

Board for Recommendation of

New Lead Counsel

On March 13, 2007, counsel for Petitioner Wilbur Jennings

(“Jennings”), a state prisoner facing capital punishment, filed an

application for leave to withdraw as counsel representing Jennings in his

continuing federal habeas proceedings. Counsel seek the appointment of

new counsel to represent Jennings and request referral to the Selection

Board for the Eastern District of California to recommend qualified

replacement counsel. 

Lead counsel Lisa Martin states that her work situation is changing

as of April 1, 2007, and she will be joining a small law firm specializing in

insurance defense litigation. Ms. Martin asserts she is not able to bring

Jennings’ case to the new firm as she will no longer have the support staff

and resources to adequately represent Jennings. Second counsel indicates

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 277 Filed 04/09/07 Page 1 of 4
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

OReCnslJen 2

he is unable to assume lead counsel responsibilities as he lacks the

necessary experience to litigate such as case through evidentiary hearing as

lead counsel and has a full caseload of capital appointments in the

California Supreme Court.

Counsel for Respondent Robert L. Ayers, Jr. (“the State”) opposes the

motion to withdraw, asserting that lead counsel’s change in employment

makes Ms. Martin unwilling, not unable, to continue representing

Jennings, and that Mr. Wells’ capital appointments by the California

Supreme Court support his continuing, even as lead counsel, to represent

Jennings. The State contends that because Ms. Martin and Mr. Wells are

experienced and intimately familiar with the present case and have ably

represented Jennings, every effort to retain them as counsel in this case

should be pursued.

Ms. Martin replies that the State misconstrues her declaration and

ignores the realities of her ability to litigate this case. Ms. Martin asserts

that she agreed to accept appointment in this case with the understanding

that she would have the financial support and resources of her firm, as

well as the resources and experience of the California Appellate Project

(“CAP”). Federal funding for CAP was discontinued, and she lost those

resources. She states that as part of restructuring her firm is undergoing,

the insurance defense practice, of which she is a part, will be leaving and

establishing a new firm of four attorneys, two full-time paralegals, one

part-time paralegal, two secretaries and a receptionist. Ms. Martin avers

that the new support staff has little or extremely limited federal experience,

and the resources of the new firm are “incredibly limited” and cannot

support a federal habeas case such as Jennings. Ms. Martin contends that

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 277 Filed 04/09/07 Page 2 of 4
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

OReCnslJen 3

for her to continue as counsel for Jennings is not a question of

“inconvenience,” but would be unfair to Jennings and her new partners. 

Ms. Martin argues that without the support of her firm or CAP, it is

impossible for her to continue to represent Jennings.

Mr. Wells replies that he has not and does not request appointment

as lead counsel for Jennings. Further, Mr. Wells argues it would be

contradictory to find he has sufficient experience to serve as lead counsel

when this Court has made findings precluding him from receiving

anything but the minimal payment for associate counsel. Mr. Wells asserts

that the pleading, procedural and evidentiary requirements in federal court

are different than state court, where he is experienced. Mr. Wells lastly

urges that it would be inappropriate to require him to associate with an as

yet unknown lead counsel, or to require them to assume the role of lead

counsel with him serving as second counsel. Mr. Wells states he is willing

to discuss with any new lead counsel the possibility of his working as

second counsel on this case, but asserts that, to ensure Jennings receives

constitutionally adequate representation, he cannot be the only attorney

representing Jennings until replacement lead counsel is appointed.

Ms. Martin has represented Jennings for over 15 years, during that

time investigating and filing his federal habeas petition, filing his state

exhaustion petition, submitting the briefing in support of the federal

petition, and litigating motions to expand the record. The motion for

evidentiary hearing has been filed, as has the reply to the State’s opposition

to an evidentiary hearing. Ms. Martin states “without the support of her

firm or CAP, it is impossible for her to continue.” This case is referred to

the Selection Board of the Eastern District of California for suggestion of

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 277 Filed 04/09/07 Page 3 of 4
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

OReCnslJen 4

new lead counsel for Jennings. The motion for withdrawal of counsel is

deferred pending recommendation from the Selection Board.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

b64h1h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:91-cv-00684-AWI-SAB Document 277 Filed 04/09/07 Page 4 of 4