Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04695/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04695-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Micah Gardner
Petitioner
Kim Holland
Respondent

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN MICAH GARDNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

KIM HOLLAND,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-04695-SI 

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Re: Dkt. No. 27

On October 28, 2016, the court granted the petition for writ of habeas corpus on a 

Confrontation Clause claim. Respondent now moves to alter or amend the judgment. Respondent 

argues that the court’s harmless error analysis did not properly consider evidence that Gardner had 

“raped” another minor, Aaliyah Doe, and Gardner “obviously tailored his defense.” Docket No. 27 

at 3, 4. The court was aware of these two areas of evidence, but did not see them as having much 

weight in the harmless error analysis and therefore did not specifically discuss them. Before 

ruling on the motion to alter or amend the judgment, however, the court wants to hear further 

argument on two particular points. 

First, the court reads a key sentence in Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684 (1986), 

to have a different meaning than respondent urges. Van Arsdall stated that, when a defendant has 

been deprived of his Confrontation Clause right to cross-examine a witness, the factors to consider 

in doing a harmless error analysis “include the importance of the witness’ testimony in the 

prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence 

corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of crossexamination otherwise permitted, and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case.” 

Id. at 684 (emphasis added). The court understands the italicized phrase to refer to the testimony 

Case 3:15-cv-04695-SI Document 28 Filed 11/14/16 Page 1 of 2
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of the witness who was not fully confronted, rather than to the testimony of other witnesses, such 

as the defendant. In other words, the court reads the phrase to mean the presence or absence of 

evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the unconfronted witness on material 

points. Respondent’s argument at page 5 of his motion to alter or amend seems to read the 

italicized phrase as referring to testimony of the defendant. In his supplemental brief, respondent 

should provide up to four of his most helpful cases supporting his interpretation of the quoted

sentence from Van Arsdall. 

Second, the court is interested in hearing further about the use of a defendant’s own 

testimony in the harmless error analysis; specifically, whether an inconsistent or unbelievable tale 

from a defendant weighs in favor of finding harmless error, and how heavily it should weigh. 

Respondent may provide up to four of his most helpful cases applying or discussing the use of a 

defendant’s testimony in the harmless error analysis. 

Respondent must file his supplemental brief no later than November 21, 2016. Petitioner 

must file any opposition to the motion and supplemental brief no later than December 9, 2016. 

The briefs may not exceed eight pages in length. At the time respondent files his supplemental 

brief, respondent also must mail to petitioner a copy of each case cited in his motion and 

supplemental brief. 

Finally, respondent asks that the court reset the 90-day deadline for the State to commence 

proceedings to retry Gardner so that the clock will start ticking on the date the court rules on the 

motion to alter or amend, rather than on the date of the order granting the petition for writ of 

habeas corpus. That request is GRANTED. The 90-day deadline will run from the date on which 

the court rules on the pending motion to alter or amend the judgment. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-04695-SI Document 28 Filed 11/14/16 Page 2 of 2