Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500/USCOURTS-caed-2_95-cv-01500-34/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERALD F. STANLEY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-95-1500 FCD GGH P

vs.

EDDIE YLST, Acting DEATH PENALTY CASE

Warden of the California State Prison

at San Quentin,

Respondent. ORDER

 /

After petitioner rested without calling Dr. Victoroff, petitioner thought better of

that action, and requested that the evidentiary hearing be reopened to accept Dr. Victoroff’s

“rebuttal” testimony. The court tentatively responded that it favored calling Dr. Victoroff for

limited testimony, but did not finalize that decision pending acquisition of respondent’s position. 

Respondent did not believe it appropriate to upset the court’s previous determination that

petitioner had rested with respect to the medical testimony, but in the alternative, suggested that

declarations be submitted in lieu of live testimony. 

In its May 21, 2006 request to reopen testimony, petitioner attached several

declarations of Dr. Victoroff, at least one of which was presented to the court on a different issue

already. Respondent attached a Dr. Reus rebuttal to the May 18, 2006 Victoroff declaration (and

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 739 Filed 07/26/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

Dr. Reus had previously addressed in his court testimony, especially on cross-examination, the

cleft palate Victoroff declaration). 

In light of the sharply drawn distinctions in testimony set forth in the exhaustive

declarations (Victoroff – May 18, 2006; Reus – June 8, 2006), “sharply” being the operative

word, the court orders that the record be expanded with the aforementioned Victoroff declaration

and the Dr. Reus rebuttal. Because the Dr. Victoroff August 31, 2005 declaration was referenced

frequently at hearing, and underlies discussion in part of the above two declarations, the court

will order its filing and expansion of the record as well. No further submissions or in court

testimony will be accepted on the medical issues. 

DATED: 7/26/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

________________________________

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

stan1500.dec

Case 2:95-cv-01500-JAM-CKD Document 739 Filed 07/26/06 Page 2 of 2