Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00219-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 535
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Death Penalty
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(DPSAGOK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Michael Angelo MORALES,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

James E. TILTON, Secretary of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and

Robert L. Ayers Jr., Acting Warden of San Quentin

State Prison,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 06 219 JF RS

Case Number C 06 926 JF RS

DEATH-PENALTY CASE

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS

TO EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR

JUDICIAL NOTICE

[Docket Nos. 257, 258, 272]

 At the evidentiary hearing in the above-entitled action, Exhibits 1 through 148 were

admitted into evidence, subject to the right of the parties to file objections subsequent to the

hearing. Plaintiff has filed objections to the admission of several exhibits; Defendants object

conditionally to several other exhibits. Plaintiff also has filed a request for judicial notice.

I

Plaintiff objects to the admission of Exhibits 32, 39, 73, 79, and 99. Defendants agree

that these exhibits should not be admitted; the objections to the exhibits are sustained.

Plaintiff objects to the admission of Exhibits 33 (Dr. Brent R. Ekins’s report), 34 (list of

Dr. Ekins’s source material), 35 (table regarding sodium thiopental from Dr. Ekins’s materials),

and 36 (Dr. Robert C. Singler’s report). Drs. Ekins and Singler testified as expert witnesses on

**E-filed 12/6/06**

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 285 Filed 12/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(DPSAGOK)

behalf of Defendants at the evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff cross-examined Drs. Ekins and Singler

extensively at the evidentiary hearing regarding the subject matter contained in these exhibits,

which are relevant and not prejudicial. The exhibits may be considered pursuant to Federal Rule

of Evidence 703. The exhibits are admissible; the objections to the exhibits are overruled.

Plaintiff objects to the admission of Exhibits 44 (Dr. Kevin T. Concannon’s declaration

in Brown v. Beck), 45 (the amicus brief of Dr. Concannon et al. in Hill v. McDonough), and 46

(Dr. Concannon’s declaration in Page v. Beck). Dr. Concannon testified as an expert witness for

Plaintiff at the evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff examined Dr. Concannon extensively at the

evidentiary hearing regarding the subject matter contained in these exhibits, which are relevant

and not prejudicial. The exhibits may be considered pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 703. 

The Court may take judicial notice of the exhibits. The exhibits are admissible; the objections to

the exhibits are overruled.

Plaintiff objects to the admission of Exhibits 75 through 77, which are “controlled

substance inventory logs” from San Quentin State Prison’s pharmacy. These exhibits were the

subject of direct examination and cross-examination during the evidentiary hearing; Dr. Mark

J.S. Heath, an expert witness for Plaintiff, testified regarding Exhibit 76. The exhibits are

relevant and not prejudicial. The exhibits may be considered pursuant to Federal Rule of

Evidence 703. The exhibits are admissible; the objections to the exhibits are overruled.

Plaintiff objects to the admission of Exhibit 148, which is an article entitled

“Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics of Thiopental,” by Hélène Russo and Françoise

Bressolle. Plaintiff had this exhibit marked at the evidentiary hearing and questioned Dr. Ekins

about it during cross-examination. The exhibit is relevant and not prejudicial. This exhibit may

be considered pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 703. The exhibit is admissible; the

objections to the exhibit are overruled.

Defendants object conditionally to the admission of Exhibits 41, 49, 51, 138, 142, and

143, in the event the Court sustains Plaintiff’s objections to Exhibits 33 through 36. Defendants’

conditional objections are mooted by the present order.

Finally, Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the order to show cause

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 285 Filed 12/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Case Nos. C 06 219 JF RS & C 06 926 JF RS

ORDER REGARDING OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

(DPSAGOK)

issued in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, No. C 01 1351 TEH, 2005 WL 2932243 (N.D. Cal. May 10,

2005), and Judge Henderson’s subsequent findings of fact and conclusions of law, 2005 WL

2932253 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2005). Defendants have not filed a response to this request, which

the Court must grant pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

II

Accordingly, and good cause therefor appearing, Plaintiff’s objections to the admission of

Exhibits 32, 39, 73, 79, and 99 are sustained; Plaintiff’s objections to the admission of Exhibits

33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 75, 76, 77, and 148 are overruled; Defendants’ conditional objections

to Exhibits 41, 49, 51, 138, 142, and 143 are deemed moot; and Plaintiff’s request for judicial

notice of the order to show cause and the findings of fact and conclusions of law issued in Plata

v. Schwarzenegger is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 5, 2006 __________________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00219-RS Document 285 Filed 12/06/06 Page 3 of 3