Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04805/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-04805-2/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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Norman Philip Evers,

Petitioner,

 v.

Silvia Garcia, Warden,

Respondent.

 /

NO. C 03-04805 JW 

ORDER RE CERTIFICATE OF

APPEALABILITY 

On October 27, 2003, Petitioner initiated the instant action by filing a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus. Petitioner claimed: (1) the trial court erred in its failure to instruct the jury on third-party culpability

and Petitioner’s alibi defense under CALJIC No. 4.50 in violation of Petitioner’s Due Process right to a fair

trial; (2) the trial court erred in instructing the jury in terms of “Guilt” and “Innocence” under CALJIC No.

2.01, by giving CALJIC No. 2.70 without clarification, in violation of Petitioner’s Due Process right to a

fair trial; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s failure to request the above jury

instructions on third-party culpability, alibi defense, and “Guilt” and “Innocence” terms, and due to trial

counsel’s failure to object to the Prosecutor’s comment on Petitioner’s silence; (4) the Prosecutor’s

comment on Petitioner’s post-arrest silence violated Petitioner’s rights to due process and to remain silent;

and (5) Petitioner is entitled to have DNA testing performed on the only physical evidence connecting him

to the murder scene and the failure to perform DNA testing violated Petitioner’s right to due process. On
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

November 14, 2005, the Court issued an Order Denying Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and

Judgment. On November 16, 2005, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2253(c)(1), an appeal may not be taken unless the district court or

appellate court issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of appealability may issue "only if the

applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 

The certificate must indicate which issues satisfy this standard, see id. § 2253(c)(3), and the court of

appeals is limited to considering only those claims. See Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir.

1999); Fuller v. Roe, 182 F.3d 699, 702-03 (9th Cir. 1999). "Where a district court has rejected the

constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: the

petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the

constitutional claims debatable or wrong." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 

Based upon all papers filed to date, this Court concludes that Petitioner has failed to make the

requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a certificate

of appealability.

Dated: November 28, 2005 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge
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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Frances Marie Dogan Frances.Dogan@doj.ca.gov

Richard Jay Moller jaym@humboldt.net

Dated: November 28, 2005 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:__/s/ JW Chambers_________

Ronald L. Davis

Courtroom Deputy