Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-4/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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE HOLT, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

Steven W. Ornoski, As Acting )

Warden of San Quentin )

State Prison, )

)

Respondent. )

)

Case No. CV F-97-6210-AWI

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER ESTABLISHING PREEVIDENTIARY HEARING CASE

MANAGEMENT PLAN

On December 19, 2005, this Court ordered off calendar a

previously scheduled case management conference (“CMC”). The CMC was

taken off calendar because the joint statement filed by the parties

in advance of the CMC did not adequately address concerns the Court

has about narrowing the factual issues to be decided at the

anticipated evidentiary hearing in this matter. To remedy this

situation, the Court directed Respondent Steven W. Ornoski, As Acting

Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the “Warden”) to file a response

to four specific questions. The Warden filed a timely response on

January 24, 2006. The Court has reviewed the Warden’s response

together with previous joint case management statements filed by the

Warden and Petitioner John Lee Holt (“Holt”), for the purpose of

establishing a pre-evidentiary hearing case management plan.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 1 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 2

I. Background.

On March 30, 2004, the Court issued an order granting a limited

evidentiary hearing as to seven guilt phase claims. The March 30,

2004 Order followed the Court’s review of substantial evidence Holt

previously submitted with state post-conviction proceedings. That

evidence is probative of the assertion that Holt lacked the necessary

mental faculties to have committed capital murder or to be tried.

Additional evidence calls into question the factual basis for Holt’s

conviction of a completed rape and the jury’s finding of the rapemurder special circumstance. A subsidiary issue involves the mental

state of one of Holt’s jurors, Billy Ross. 

The Court conducted two prior CMCs on May 16, 2005 and September

26, 2005 for the purpose of working with the parties to narrow the

factual disputes as to each of these issues. Prior to the scheduled

December 19, 2005 CMC, the parties filed a joint case management

statement which failed to address the Court’s primary concerns,

particularly from the Warden’s perspective. 

In the form of questions, those concerns were:

1. With respect to Holt’s allegations of mental

incompetence to be tried and a mental state defense to

the underlying offense, does the Warden claim Holt is

malingering?

2. In the March 30, 2004 order granting a limited

evidentiary hearing, the Court referred to numerous

declarations and documentary evidence originally

submitted by Holt to the California Supreme Court on

state post-conviction proceedings. Does the Warden

object to the admissibility of any of this evidence?

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 2 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 3

If so, and bearing in mind the provisions if 28 U.S.C.

§ 2246, the Warden is directed to specify the

document(s) and/or declaration(s) to which he objects,

and state the legal basis for his objection(s). 

3. Given the Court’s order limiting evidence that will be

received regarding the claim of juror partiality as to

Billy Ross, why does the Warden intend to elicit

testimony from Wyatt Ross or Ramona Ross?

4. Given the Court’s order regarding physical evidence of

a completed rape, why does the Warden intend to call

an expert on sexual assault victims in addition to a

gynecologist?

II. The Warden’s Response.

The Warden contests all but a very small fraction of the evidence

in the record. He claims that Holt, indeed, is malingering and he

objects to all evidence previously submitted by Holt on state postconviction proceedings as inadmissible. Further, he contends he is

entitled to produce evidence regarding juror Billy Ross and Holt’s

rape conviction which is beyond the scope of inquiry originally

contemplated by the Court.

A. Whether Holt is Malingering.

The Warden takes the position that evidence of Holt’s compromised

mental state regarding to his competence to be tried and his mental

state at the time of the offense is undermined by evidence of

malingering. Evidence supporting the Warden’s contention that Holt

is a malingerer is contained in the Reporter’s Transcript of the state

trial and in some exhibits Holt appended to his state habeas petition.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 3 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 4

The Warden states that he anticipates developing additional evidence

through discovery. 

B. Objections to And Proposals to Meet Previously Submitted

Evidence.

The Warden reports that to controvert evidence previously

submitted by Holt, he needs to develop his own evidence. In that

vein, he states that the March 30, 2004 Order granting a limited

evidentiary hearing and the status conference statements contemplate

some degree of discovery, “notably the files of petitioner’s trial

counsel.” The Court is aware the parties have engaged in some

discussions for discovery of files generated by Holt’s trial counsel

and that these discussions have not proved fruitful. The Warden also

states that he “has not been permitted to pose interrogatories to the

various declarants, affiants, and experts” presented by Holt. None

of the prior joint case management statements outline whether the

Warden has attempted to propound interrogatories on an informal basis.

Until discovery issues are resolved, the Warden stand by numerous

general and specific objections to the previously submitted and

considered evidence. He “objects generally to admission of any and

all exhibits cited by the Court as part of [Holt’s] state habeas

petition.” There are over 170 declarations, reports and other

documents involved. The bases for the general objections to Holt’s

declarations include that they lack foundation, that they contain

hearsay, that the declarants are not competent, and that the probative

value of the declarations is outweighed by prejudice to the Warden.

Holt’s submitted documents and reports are generally objected to on

the grounds that they lack authenticity, that they contain hearsay,

that they lack competence of the declarant, and that the probative

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 4 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 5

value of the documents/ reports is outweighed by prejudice to the

Warden.

The Warden also interposes specific objections as to each of over

120 declarations, reports, or other documents. He claims not to

object to approximately 47 declarations, reports or other documents,

but relates that even when he does not specifically object to a

particular exhibit, he does not waive his general objections. From

this statement, the Court understands that the Warden objects to each

and every offer of evidence previously submitted with Holt’s state

post-conviction proceedings.

C. Evidence Pertinent to Alleged Juror Misconduct.

The Warden has listed Ramona Ross and Wyatt Ross as proposed

witnesses in connection with the claim alleging misconduct by juror

Billy Ross. Ramona Ross is Billy Ross’s wife, and Wyatt Ross is his

son. The Court directed the Warden to explain the purpose of

testimony from Mr. Ross’s wife and son, in light of the limited nature

of the evidentiary hearing ordered on this claim. The Warden responds

that the testimony of Mr. Ross’s wife and son will be highly probative

rebuttal evidence concerning “the incident involving Mary Callahan”

and probative on the “the issue of the existence or non-existence of

racial animus and bias on the part of Billy Ross.”

D. Evidence Pertinent to the Disputed Rape Conviction.

The Warden has listed an expert on sexual assault victims in

addition to a gynecologist regarding the claim disputing physical

evidence of a completed rape. The Court directed the Warden to

explain the purpose of proposed testimony from an expert on sexual

assault victims. He responds that an expert on sexual assault victims

“can provide material direct or rebuttal evidence regarding the

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 5 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 6

significance of any physical trauma or its lack, and can offer expert

testimony on likely causes in light of the totality of evidence that

was available to counsel and that was presented at trial.”

III. Discussion.

With the foregoing information supplied by the Warden, in

conjunction with previously submitted joint case management

statements, the Court establishes a pre-evidentiary hearing case

management schedule over the next four months. At the end of that

four-month period, the Court will conduct a subsequent CMC to assess

the parties’ progress in preparing for the anticipated evidentiary

hearing, including conducting discovery and stipulating to undisputed

facts. The Court also intends to set a date for the evidentiary

hearing at that CMC.

A. Holt’s Mental State.

In a previous joint case management statement filed May 2, 2005,

Holt identified 219 witnesses whose testimony he stated he intended

to present, an undisclosed but significant number of whom are

employees of the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) who have had contact with or have been

involved in treatment of Holt at both the San Quentin and Vacaville

prison facilities. The Warden’s contention that Holt is a malingerer

supplies relevance to post-incarceration evidence from CDCR employees,

which the Court previously questioned. Aside from refuting the

Warden’s claim of malingering, Holt asserts the post-incarceration

evidence is independently relevant to “professional judgments

concerning his past mental status” as it completes his mental health

history. 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 6 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 7

Since the relevance of post-incarceration evidence has been

supplied, the Court directs the parties to document progress they are

making in interviewing CDCR employees, including the Warden’s

cooperation in this endeavor. To the extent that testimonial evidence

from CDCR employees will be cumulative (if it will be cumulative), the

Court also anticipates the parties will reach a stipulation about

post-incarceration findings and treatments. That stipulation will be

filed with the Court as specified below, within 120 days of the filing

of this Order in a joint case management statement. With respect to

discovery the Warden intends to conduct in order to fortify his

contention of malingering, his discovery motions shall be filed as

specified below, within 60 days of the filing of this Order.

B. Admissibility of Evidence in the Record.

A significant concern of the Court respecting the parties’

preparation for the anticipated evidentiary hearing is the

admissibility of existing evidence in the record. In the March 30,

2004 Order granting a limited evidentiary hearing, the Court referred

to numerous declarations and documentary evidence originally submitted

by Holt with his state habeas petition. Section 2246 of Title 28

provides for the admissibility of declarations submitted by Holt, but

also provides the Warden an opportunity to test that witness testimony

by propounding written interrogatories or obtaining answering

affidavits. The Court does not rule out other means of cross

examination. Section 2247 of Title 28 additionally provides for the

admissibility of documentary evidence introduced in any previous or

similar post-conviction application on behalf of the same petitioner.

The Court construes these provisions as grounds for admitting all

declarations and documentary evidence originally submitted by Holt

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 7 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 8

with his state habeas petition, subject to evidentiary testing by the

Warden and appropriate evidentiary objections. 

As noted, the Warden has interposed numerous specific and general

objections to over 170 exhibits Holt originally presented with his

state habeas petition. Moreover, although almost 50 exhibits are

apparently not objectionable on specific grounds, the Warden still

maintains his general objections of foundation, hearsay, competence,

prejudice, and with respect to documents, authenticity.

In considering the Warden’s numerous and meticulous objections,

the Court wonders whether he disputes the existence foundational

facts. For instance, with respect to juror Billy Ross, does the

Warden dispute that the rental home in which Mr. Ross’s tenant Mary

Callahan lived was cited for building and safety violations? Does the

Warden dispute that Mr. Ross’s son Wyatt was arrested for physically

assaulting Ms. Callahan? With respect to Holt’s background, the Court

similarly wonders if the Warden disputes that Holt was born not

breathing, suffered severe abuse as a child, was institutionalized

beginning as a youngster, and thereafter intermittently through his

teens, and suffered depressed intellectual functioning. Finally, with

respect to Holt’s challenge to the rape conviction and rape-murder

special circumstance, the Court wonders whether the Warden disputes

that post-conviction expert testimony previously submitted by Holt is

competent (whether or not he agrees with it and intends to controvert

it).

The specific legal bases for some of the Warden’s objections also

are puzzling. For instance, there are 99 references to Federal Rule

of Evidence 104, 107 references to Federal Rule of Evidence 403, and

83 references to Federal Rule of Evidence 405. Rule 104 provides that

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 8 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 9

a judge presiding over a jury trial will rule on the admissibility of

testimonial or documentary evidence before it is presented to the

jury. Subdivision (a) Rule 104 conditions admitting evidence for

juror consideration on the existence of non-existence of various

attributes, including privilege, witness competence, hearsay, the

voluntariness of a confession, and the availability of the a witness

or an original document. Subdivision (b) of Rule 104 conditions the

determination that certain evidence presented for jury consideration

is relevant on the existence of a preliminary fact, including

authentication of documents, first-hand knowledge, and witness

competence. Once a preliminary showing of minimal relevance is

established, authentication of documents and witness competence become

matters of weight for the jury to determine. Rule 403 also has a

gatekeeping function for excluding otherwise relevant evidence from

a jury where the probative value of the disputed evidence is

outweighed by “unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, misleading

the jury, or by consideration of undue delay, waste of time, or

needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Finally, Rule 405

provides that when evidence is admissible as to one party or as to one

purpose, but not as to another party or purpose, the Court, on

request, shall give a special instruction to the jury restricting the

evidence to the proper scope. There is no jury fact-finding in a

federal capital habeas action. Accordingly, by definition Federal

Rules of Evidence 104, 403, and 405 are not applicable in the context

of this case, and all such objections must be overruled.

Testing and controverting previously submitted evidence is an

entirely different matter. To test this previously considered

evidence, as specified in § 2246, the Warden is directed to make

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 9 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 10

arrangements to contact whatever percipient witnesses, including

relatives, family friends, social service personnel, and any mental

health care professionals familiar with Holt’s background he deems

appropriate. Holt’s counsel are expected to assist the Warden in

making necessary contacts. If informal efforts are unsuccessful, the

Warden is directed to move the Court for appropriate discovery orders.

The progress of contacting Holt’s witnesses will be relayed in the

next joint case management statement to be filed within 120 days of

the filing of this Order, as noted below. 

The Warden has expressed concern about the discoverability of

files generated by Holt’s trial counsel and that he has not been

permitted to pose interrogatories to Holt’s various witnesses. The

Warden is at liberty to request whatever discovery he feels he needs

to make his case. The Warden’s discovery motions shall be filed

within 60 days from the filing of this order.

C. Additional Evidence to Be Offered by the Warden.

The Warden’s response clarifies his position regarding the

presentation of additional evidence relevant to the alleged misconduct

of juror Billy Ross and the challenge to Holt’s rape conviction

together with the rape-murder special circumstance. His position is

subject to modification.

1. Alleged Misconduct of Juror Billy Ross.

The Warden has offered two purposes for including the wife and

son of juror Billy Ross on his proposed witness list. First he

maintains these family members can provide rebuttal testimony to

evidence of the assault involving tenant Mary Callahan. Second he

maintains the wife and son can provide testimony probative of racial

animus harbored or not harbored by Mr. Ross.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 10 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 11

The issue to be resolved at the evidentiary hearing, however,

does not involve the precise circumstances of the assault on Mary

Callahan. Nor does it involve the impression family members may have

on Mr. Ross’s racial views. Under the March 30, 2004 Order, the only

issue to be resolved regarding juror Billy Ross is whether he was

intentionally deceptive in failing to timely reveal accurate

information about the Callahan incident as well as the existence of

his short-term memory loss, and if so, why. Even if the Warden

disputes the rendition of the facts involving the Callahan incident

supplied by Holt, that dispute is not relevant to the present inquiry.

The Court does not need the testimony of Ramona Ross or Wyatt Ross to

explain the circumstances of Ms. Callahan’s tenancy or the assault on

her by Wyatt Ross. The fact that there was an acrimonious

relationship and an assault on her, during the jury selection process

for Holt’s case, is well-documented. The Warden does not dispute that

Wyatt Ross was arrested in connection with the assault. The fact that

there was a three week delay from the assault incident and Mr. Ross’s

disclosure of that fact to Holt’s trial judge, after Mr. Ross was

selected to sit in Holt’s judgment, also is not disputed. Nor has the

Warden controverted the fact that when Mr. Ross finally did disclose

the fact of his son’s arrest to Holt’s trial judge, he related an

inaccurate and misleading account of the events. Examination of the

juror misconduct issue requires testimony from Mr. Ross himself,

particularly as it relates to the Callahan incident. However, if the

Warden has an offer of proof for the testimony of Mr. Ross’s wife and

son on the issue of his memory impairment, the Court will consider

that offer. 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 11 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 12

2. Challenge to Holt’s Rape Conviction and the RapeMurder Special Circumstance.

The matter that has concerned the Court regarding the Warden’s

stated intention to elicit testimony of an expert on sexual assault

victims is the presentation of cumulative or, conversely, nonprobative evidence. The issue to be resolved relates solely to

whether a rape actually and physically occurred. Based on the

Warden’s general description of expected testimony from his proposed

sexual assault victim expert, the Court will have to await further

information, including the qualifications of the proposed expert and

the nature of the expert’s testimony in an offer of proof. That

information should be included in the next joint case management

statement to be filed 120 days from the filing of this Order.

IV. Order.

Within 60 days from the filing of this Order, that is by May 2,

2006, the parties shall file their respective discovery motions. In

addition to identifying the subject matter of the discovery sought,

the motions should briefly recount efforts to conduct discovery

informally. In the interim the parties should continue to strive to

engage in informal discovery. The parties shall file a joint case

management statement in 120 days from the filing of this Order, that

is on or before July 3, 2006, in which they will identify the factual

issues they do not dispute, exhibits from the state habeas petition

they agree can be admitted into evidence, and witnesses from whom they

wish to elicit evidence on the limited issues. Offers of proof will

be required. The joint case management statement should also inform

the Court of the progress in conducting discovery.

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 12 of 13
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

97dp06210.OEstPreEvidHrgCaseMgmtPlan.Hlt.wpd 13

A CMC will be conducted telephonically on July 20, 2006 at 9:00

a.m. to discuss the contents of the joint case management conference.

The Court will initiate the conference five minutes before the hearing

is to commence. In the interim, the Court will rule on any discovery

motions filed. The parties should make every effort to complete

discovery within 30 days from the Court’s order granting discovery

(where the Court grants discovery). The Court intends to set a date

for the evidentiary hearing at the July 20, 2006 CMC. In addition,

the Court will establish discovery and motion cut-off dates at the

CMC, if it is determined further discovery and motions are necessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: March 3, 2006 

 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

 Anthony W. Ishii

 United States District Judge

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 128 Filed 03/03/06 Page 13 of 13