Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-00977/USCOURTS-azd-3_04-cv-00977-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 28:2255 Motion to Vacate / Correct Illegal Sentence

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

Plaintiff/Respondent, ) No. CR 99-206 PCT RCB (LOA)

) CIV 04-977 PCT RCB

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

GERALD D. NAHA, SR., )

)

Defendant/Movant. ) )

This court previously ruled on a myriad of motions by movant

Gerald D. Naha, Sr. One narrow issue remained unresolved, however. 

The court “took under advisement pending further discovery[,]” as

specified by the court, movant’s ineffective assistance of counsel

claim, but only to the extent that claim “relat[ed] to counsel’s

alleged impairment of Movant’s right to a public trial through the

exclusion of his aunts from the courtroom[.]” United States v.

Naha, 2007 WL 91614, at *15 (D.Ariz. Jan. 11, 2007) Discovery in

accordance with the court’s orders is now complete. 

No party “petition[ed] the Court for leave to file any

supplemental briefing[]” upon the conclusion of that discovery. 

Case 3:04-cv-00977-RCB Document 20 Filed 03/13/09 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

1 That Rule provides in relevant part that “[a]t the request of a party

the court shall order witnesses excluded so that they cannot hear the testimony of

other witnesses, and it may make the order on its own motion.” Fed. R. Civ. 615.

- 2 -

United States v. Naha, 2007 WL 91615, at *2 (D.Ariz. Jan. 11,

2007). Thus, in accordance with that order, “the Court will only

look to the currently filed briefing on Movant’s § 2255 motion and

the filed records of any depositions taken pursuant to this order.” 

Id.

Background

As the parties are well aware, the court found “good cause to

allow limited discovery into” movant’s ineffective assistance of

counsel. Id. at *1. “[N]ot[ing] the open questions regarding (1)

the truth of Movant’s allegation that his counsel had instructed

his aunts not to enter the courtroom during his trial and (2)

whether Movant’s aunts were prospective witnesses to whom the

Court’s sequestration order under Rule 6151 of the Federal Rules of

Evidence would have applied at trial[,]” the court instructed the

parties to proceed with written questions pertaining to those

issues. Id. (citation omitted and footnote added). 

Among other questions, movant’s former counsel, Robert

McWhirter, was asked, whether he “specifically advise[d] either

Patricia Walker or Bernadine Pusher [movant’s aunts] that they were

excluded from the courtroom[.]” Transcript of McWhirter Dep’n (doc.

17) at 4:6-8. Mr. McWhirter unequivocally responded: “I did not

advise them that they were excluded from the courtroom.” Id. at

4:9-10. In a similar vein, when asked whether he “direct[ed]

[movant’s mother] to exclude any family members from the

courtroom[,]” Mr. McWhirter answered, “No, I did not.” Id. at

Case 3:04-cv-00977-RCB Document 20 Filed 03/13/09 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 -

4:11-13. Further, in response to whether he had “any reason to

exclude” movant’s aunts from the courtroom, Mr. McWhirter replied

simply, “No.” Id. at 4:14-16.

In contrast, Mr. McWhirter testified that he did specifically

“advise” movant’s mother “that she could not be present in the

courtroom during the trial[]” because she “was considered a

potential witness based on allegations that she improperly

contacted the victim and her mother at the request of defendant[.]” 

Id. at 4:3 and 3:21-23. For that reason, movant’s mother was

“excludable under Rule 615[.]” Id. at 3:23-24. In fact, Mr.

McWhirter testified that on the eve of trial he had a discussion

with the prosecutor regarding excluding movant’s mother from the

courtroom on that basis. See id. at 3:19-4:1. 

Additionally, Mr. McWhirter testified that when movant asked

him why “these family members were not in the courtroom[,]” he

“explained . . . why [movant’s] mother was excluded from the

courtroom under Rule 615.” Id. at 4:21-22. As to the aunts, it is

Mr. McWhirter’s “recollection” that “they simply left and walked

out of the courtroom with Mr. Naha’s mother.” Id. at 4:23-24. Mr.

McWhirter “never told them to leave the courtoom[,] and he

“explained that to Mr. Naha.” Id. at 4:24-25. 

Finally, when queried as to why exclusion of the family

members was “never raised with [the] trial court or on direct

appeal[,]” Mr. McWhirter testified that he “did not see that”

raising that issue “would provide any legal benefit to Mr. Naha.” 

Id. at 5:1-5. Turning to the issue of whether Mr. Naha was “denied

a public trial[,]” Mr. McWhirter succinctly stated that Mr. Naha

“was not denied a public trial[;] [i]t was just his mother was

Case 3:04-cv-00977-RCB Document 20 Filed 03/13/09 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 -

asked to leave the courtroom because she was a potential witness.” 

Id. at 5:6-8.

Discussion

With the advantage of a fully developed record, the court is

persuaded that there is absolutely no basis for movant’s claim of

ineffective assistance of counsel due to the alleged exclusion of

his aunts from the courtroom. Mr. McWhirter’s testimony flatly

contradicts movant’s supposition that Mr. McWhirter instructed

movant’s aunts to leave the courtroom. As Mr. McWhirter’s

testimony shows, the only person he instructed to leave the

courtroom was movant’s mother. Moreover, in accordance with Fed.

R. Evid. 615, Mr. McWhirter had a sound legal basis for excluding

her. Not only that, it is entirely plausible that movant’s aunts

would have left the courtroom with his mother, as Mr. McWhirter

testified, to support her while she waited to be called as a

witness. Thus, the additional discovery which the court previously

allowed does not provide any factual basis for movant’s ineffective

assistance of counsel claim based upon the alleged exclusion of his

aunts from the courtroom. Accordingly, the court DENIES the

remaining portion of Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or

Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 62), which it

had previously taken under advisement.

Having resolved all aspects of Movant’s Motion to Vacate, Set

Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (doc. 62)

against movant and in favor of the United States of America, the

court hereby directs the Clerk of the Court to enter JUDGMENT in

. . . 

Case 3:04-cv-00977-RCB Document 20 Filed 03/13/09 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 -

favor of the United States of America and to terminate this case.

DATED this 12th day of March, 2009.

Copies to counsel of record and defendant/movant pro se

Case 3:04-cv-00977-RCB Document 20 Filed 03/13/09 Page 5 of 5