Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210/USCOURTS-caed-1_97-cv-06210-26/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LEE HOLT,

Petitioner,

v.

KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden of San Quentin 

State Prison,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:97-cv-06210-AWI-SAB

DEATH PENALTY CASE

ORDER SETING INTERIM TELEPHONIC 

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Date: March 17, 2015

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Courtroom: 9

Judge: Stanley A. Boone

This matter is before the Court on the parties’ October 31, 2014 joint statement regarding 

anticipated limited evidentiary hearing on guilt phase claims 9 (lack of juror impartiality and 

implied bias - juror Billy Ross), 11 (mental competency), 12 (ineffective assistance of counsel –

mental competency), 13 (ineffective assistance of counsel – mental state defenses), 14

(ineffective assistance of counsel – calling Petitioner to testify), 15 (ineffective assistance of 

counsel and trial court error – lesser included instructions for rape) and 16 (ineffective assistance

of counsel – failure to investigate rape). By this order, the Court sets an interim telephonic case 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 221 Filed 02/24/15 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

2

management conference to discuss the parties’ respective positions and to set the date for the 

limited evidentiary hearing and to establish any other scheduling matters. 

I.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner commenced this action on December 15, 1997 with the filing of an application 

for counsel and request to stay the execution of his death sentence. On December 1, 1998, 

Petitioner filed his fully exhausted petition. After briefing by both parties, Petitioner filed a 

motion for an evidentiary hearing on March 1, 2001.

On March 30, 2004, the Court denied claims 2, 3, 6, 8 and 10 on the merits, bifurcated 

proceedings between guilt and penalty phases, and ordered a limited evidentiary hearing on the 

above noted guilt phase claims. The Court held in reserve the remaining claims for which an 

evidentiary hearing was requested, i.e., claims 19, 21, 22, 32, 33, 41 and 43. The parties engaged 

in factual development in anticipation of the evidentiary hearing. 

On November 21, 2008, the Court stayed proceedings pursuant to Rohan ex rel. Gates v. 

Woodford, 334 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2003), pending Petitioner’s restoration to mental competence. 

The Gates stay was lifted, effective January 8, 2013, when the Supreme Court filed its opinion in 

Ryan v. Gonzales, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 696 (2013). This Court, on November 15, 2013, 

ordered reinstitution of preparations for the limited evidentiary hearing. The parties were 

directed to meet and confer and to file a joint statement narrowing disputed evidentiary hearing 

issues and responding to the following issues:

1. Respondent’s commitment to eliciting testimony from Ramona and Wyatt Ross 

(possibly by deposition); 

2. Setting a briefing schedule to resolve claim 9; 

3. Providing an opportunity for Respondent to test and controvert the statements of 

witnesses who provided declarations; 

4. Preserving the testimony of all aging witnesses, especially trial experts Drs. 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 221 Filed 02/24/15 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

Pierce and Benson; 

5. Preserving the testimony of Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Pettis; 

6. Completing the exchange of Rule 26 disclosures, including identifying alleged 

omissions; 

7. Petitioner’s response to Respondent’s objections to documentary evidence 

submitted with state habeas pleadings (excluding the objections based on Federal 

Rules of Evidence 104, 403, and 405); 

8. The parties’ willingness to stipulate to a protective order regarding Mr. Soria’s 

deposition; and 

9. Petitioner’s position on Respondent’s commitment to designating an expert on 

sexual assault victims.

On October 31, 2014, the parties filed their joint statement. 

II.

DISCUSSION AND ORDER

The parties’ joint statement resolves some of the issues listed by the Court in its meet and 

confer order. The parties set out a briefing schedule for claim 9. They propose to update, by 

May 2015, Rule 26 disclosures and related documentation, including as to replacement expert(s). 

They agree that deposition of defense counsel, Mr. Soria, is covered by the existing protective 

order dated July 10, 2006. They agree that Respondent’s objections to documentary evidence in 

the state record were resolved by when Judge Ishii, on July 10, 2006, granted expansion of the 

record to include all documentary evidence presented in Petitioner’s state habeas corpus petition. 

However, the joint statement leaves unresolved other meet and confer issues. The parties 

do not agree on the method by which Respondent may test and controvert Petitioner’s witness 

declarations, whether through cross-examination or written interrogatories or answering 

affidavits, and whether and when Respondent is to identify the declarants he desires to challenge. 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 221 Filed 02/24/15 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

The parties do not agree whether there is good cause for Petitioner to depose aging witnesses 

including experts Drs. Pierce and Benson, or whether state court declarations and Rule 26 reports

of these witnesses may be received as substantive testimony. The parties do not agree whether 

discomfort and anxiety is good cause to allow Petitioner’s primary mental defense expert, Dr. 

Pettis, to be video-deposed rather than provide live testimony at the evidentiary hearing, or

whether Dr. Pettis’s state court declarations and Rule 26 reports may be received as substantive 

testimony. The parties do not agree whether they will designate (i) a sex assault victim expert 

(Respondent), or (ii) a Strickland expert (Petitioner). 

The Court will conduct an interim case management conference to address these and 

other issues pertaining to the anticipated limited evidentiary hearing. Specifically, the parties 

should be prepared to address the appropriate and most efficient manner of presenting evidence,

including stipulated facts, legal and evidentiary issues, mutually agreeable documentary 

evidence, and the identity of available witnesses for examination. Further, the parties should be 

prepared to address any remaining disputes regarding the admissibility of the evidence relied 

upon by both parties. Finally, the parties should be prepared to address the issue of settlement 

given Petitioner’s apparent compromised mental state. The Court will facilitate settlement 

discussions if the parties wish to pursue this option. At the conclusion of the case management 

conference, Respondent’s counsel will be excused and the conference will continue ex parte with 

counsel for Petitioner present to discuss any budgeting issues. 

Generally, the Court prefers the presentation of evidence via live testimony because it is 

more succinct and complete. However, the Court will consider alternatives that meet with 

judicial and economic efficiency for all. One exception may be if both parties agree to submit 

testimony via written declaration. If the other party waives its right to cross-examination or 

consents to conducting cross-examination by written interrogatories, the Court will generally 

permit the admission of testimony by written declaration. See 28 U.S.C. § 2246. Further, under 

certain circumstances the Court may allow testimony to be introduced from a pre-hearing 

deposition. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that an interim telephonic case management 

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 221 Filed 02/24/15 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

conference is set for March 17, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 9 before the undersigned. The 

attorneys are directed to contact the Court’s Courtroom Deputy Clerk, Ms. Mamie Hernandez, to 

obtain the teleconference code.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 24, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:97-cv-06210-KES Document 221 Filed 02/24/15 Page 5 of 5