Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_94-cv-00641/USCOURTS-cand-3_94-cv-00641-8/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

 Vincent Cullen is automatically substituted for Robert K. Wong

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

MICHAEL HILL,

 

 Petitioner,

 v.

VINCENT CULLEN,1 Acting Warden of

San Quentin State Prison,

 

 Respondent.

Case Number 4-94-cv-641-CW

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER SETTING PROCEDURES

FOR COMPETENCY EXAMINATION

Pursuant to an order of the Court, (Doc. No. 289), counsel

for the parties met and conferred to try to agree to a structure

for a competency examination of Petitioner. Counsel made

substantial progress but ultimately were unable to reach an

agreement. Accordingly, pursuant to that same order, Petitioner

filed the present motion for an order setting procedures for an

examination. (Doc. No. 290).

Petitioner’s proposal is “informed by those procedures used

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 9
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

by Federal courts in formulating orders for the examination of an

accused in a Federal capital case” pursuant to Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 12.2. (Doc. No. 291 at 3.) He asserts that

this is necessary to protect his rights under the Fifth and Sixth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

Respondent contends that Petitioner’s Fifth and Sixth

Amendment rights are not presently implicated. (Doc. 293 at 2.) 

However, the cases Respondent cites in fact support a conclusion

that the Court should adopt procedures along the lines of

Petitioner’s proposal even if such procedures are not required by

the Constitution.

For example, in United States v. Stockwell, the prosecutor

“listened to a complete tape recording” of the defendant’s

psychiatric examination. 743 F.3d 123, 125 (2d Cir. 1984). 

Although the Second Circuit held that “such a procedure cannot be

said to constitute a per se violation of . . . the defendant’s

Fifth Amendment rights,” the court nonetheless determined that

such a practice should be avoided. Id. at 127. Similarly, the

Fifth Circuit recognized that sealing the results of a

psychiatric examination until the penalty phase of a capital

trial where the defense intends to offer mental-health evidence

only in mitigation “likely advances interests of judicial

economy” even though “such a rule is not constitutionally

mandated.” United States v. Hall, 152 F.3d 381, 399 (5th Cir.

1998), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. MartinezSalazar, 528 U.S. 304 (2000); see also United States v. Allen,

247 F.3d 741, 774 (8th Cir. 2001), vacated on other grounds by

536 U.S. 953 (2002) (“Additional prophylactic safeguards . . .

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 2 of 9
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

may avoid later litigation but are not constitutionally

required.”).

Accordingly, and good cause appearing therefor, any

examination of Petitioner by the State’s examiner, Dr. Paul Good, 

shall be conducted pursuant to the following procedures. The

same procedures shall be put in place should Petitioner’s counsel

seek any further examination of Petitioner by their designated

examiner, Dr. Karen Franklin.

Petitioner shall be examined by the State’s designated

examiner, Dr. Paul Good, and may be reëxamined by his own

designated examiner, Dr. Karen Franklin, within sixty days of the

entry of the present order. The examination and assessment shall

be for the sole purpose of assessing Petitioner’s present

competency in the context of the present habeas corpus

proceeding, including the assessment of his ability to

communicate with, and assist, counsel.

Within fourteen days after the entry of the present order,

each party shall provide Drs. Good and Franklin with any evidence

he wishes to be included in the evaluation.

The interview and testing sessions shall take place in the

psychological conference room at San Quentin State Prison. 

Petitioner’s two attorneys shall not be permitted in the

examination room during the examination(s), but shall be

permitted to be close enough to the examination room in which

Petitioner is being examined so that either or both of them can

consult with Petitioner as needed pursuant to his requests. The

named examiners shall permit Petitioner a reasonable opportunity

for confidential consultations with counsel.

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 3 of 9
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

The competency examinations shall be videotaped and audio

recorded so that the parties and the Court may review the

examination if necessary. Counsel for Petitioner shall have the

opportunity to review the videotape of the entire examination of

Petitioner by the State’s examiner, and to raise objections to

the scope and method of the examination, prior to the release of

any video, tape, transcript, reports, or notes of the examination

to counsel for Respondent, or their representatives. Counsel for

Petitioner shall have twenty-one days from the date of their

receipt of any video or tape recording of the examination to

review it and to file their objections. If any objections are

filed, the Court will then determine the procedure to be used to

resolve the objections.

No later than fourteen days before the examination by the

State’s examiner, counsel for Petitioner shall be informed in

writing of any tests or assessment instruments that the State’s

examiner proposes to use in the examination. Petitioner’s counsel

shall have ten days from the date of their receipt of such notice

to tender any written objections to any test or assessment

instrument, or to the scope of the proposed examination, to

counsel for Respondent. Counsel for Respondent shall then

decide, in consultation with the State’s examiner, whether to

proceed with the proposed test, or assessment device, or not. If

counsel for Petitioner have tendered a written objection to a

test or assessment instrument that is given to Petitioner, they

shall be permitted to file an objection in this Court to the

release of the results of such test or assessment instrument

prior to its dissemination to counsel for Respondent. Petitioner

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 4 of 9
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

may also object, in this Court, prior to any hearing on the issue

of competency, to the use of any test or assessment instrument as

a basis for the State examiner’s opinion on Petitioner’s

competency.

Counsel for Respondent shall also, no later than fourteen

days before the proposed examination date, provide Petitioner and

his counsel with notice of the scope of the examination, by

tendering a written description of the general subjects (e.g.,

Petitioner’s history, his understanding of the present procedural

posture of the case, his ability to communicate with counsel,

etc.) to be addressed during the examination. As with the tests

and assessment devices, counsel for Petitioner shall be permitted

to tender objections to Respondent’s counsel no later than four

days before the examination to subject matters that Petitioner’s

counsel contend are outside the scope of a competency

examination. Counsel for Respondent and the State’s examiner

shall then decide whether to proceed with the inquiry to which

Petitioner’s counsel objects. If a decision is made in favor of

proceeding in view of the objection, counsel for Petitioner shall

be permitted to refer to the objection as a basis for asking this

Court to redact that portion of the examination from the record

of the examination, or for objecting in this Court to the use of

that portion of the examination as a basis for any opinion of the

State’s examiner on the issue of Petitioner’s competency. 

Whether he tenders objections to Respondent’s counsel or not, he

shall be permitted to object in this Court to the scope of the

examination conducted, prior to any decision by this Court on the

question of his present competence.

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 5 of 9
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

Petitioner’s counsel shall be provided with a videotape

and/or a transcript of the examination within seven days of the

completion of the examination. Counsel shall then have twentyone days to review the recording and/or transcript, and to inform

counsel for Respondent, in writing, whether there are objections

to some or all of the content of the examination. At the same

time, counsel for Petitioner shall file objections with the Court

sufficient to allow the Court to determine whether a hearing on

those objections will be warranted prior to any hearing on the

merits of the issue of Petitioner’s competency.

After the Court resolves any objections filed by Petitioner,

Dr. Good shall, and Dr. Franklin may, submit a report informing

the Court and the parties of his or her opinions and the

supporting data. Any report submitted to the Court shall list

any materials considered in conducting the examination, state the

clinical basis for any diagnosis, and answer (1) whether

Petitioner has the capacity to appreciate his position and make

rational choices with respect to proceedings in this Court;

(2) whether Petitioner is suffering from a mental disease,

disorder, or defect that may substantially affect his capacity;

and (3) whether Petitioner has the capacity to communicate

rationally with counsel regarding this matter.

Within thirty days after the completion of the submission of

the reports by Drs. Good and Franklin, counsel for the parties

shall meet and confer to make a good-faith attempt to reach an

agreement about Petitioner’s competency and an appropriate course

of action. Within thirty days after counsel meet and confer,

they shall file a joint statement outlining the parties’ view or

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 6 of 9
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

views regarding Petitioner’s competency and an appropriate course

of action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/10/10__________________ ______________________________

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 7 of 9
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL HILL,

Plaintiff,

 v.

VINCENT CULLEN,1

 Acting Warden of San

Quentin State Prison,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV94-00641 CW 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 10, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing

said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery

receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

John Timothy Philipsborn

Attorney at Law

507 Polk Street, Suite 350

San Francisco, CA 94102

Juliet B. Haley

California Attorney Generals Office

455 Golden Gate Avenue

Suite 11000

San Francisco, CA 94102-7004

Lynne S. Coffin

Law Offices of Lynne S. Coffin

38 Miller Ave., #328

Mill Valley, CA 94941

Michael David Laurence

Habeas Corpus Resource Center

303 Second Street

Suite 400 South

San Francisco, CA 94107

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 8 of 9
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

Michael G. Millman

California Appellate Project

101 Second St., Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94105

Dated: May 10, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:94-cv-00641-VC Document 295 Filed 05/10/10 Page 9 of 9