Opinion ID: 1199597
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Geneva Gholston

Text: In June 1994, Nerad and Sarah Bryer met with Gholston at her Lindsay home over a three-day period. Nerad and Bryer said they were legal investigators, and Bryer presented a CAP business card. Gholston thought their purpose was to close the case, i.e., carry out the penalty; she did not realize they were working for petitioner. [8] Considerable time was spent socializing, but on the first day, Nerad and Bryer interviewed Gholston about her jury service. No notes or recordings were made, a fact Gholston mentioned as the interview ended. The following day, Nerad and Bryer returned with a draft declaration. Gholston was not given a copy to read; instead, Bryer read the declaration to her. Gholston did not recall whether Bryer asked if the declaration was correct, or that Gholston herself interrupted the oral reading to suggest changes or correct errors. Gholston signed something in front of the interviewers, but she did not read what she signed, and the 1994 declaration, as attached to the petition for habeas corpus, is not what she signed. [9] The interviewers left her no copy, and she did not personally examine the contents of the declaration until a representative of the Attorney General's office gave her a copy in 1996. The 1994 declaration contains a lot of stuff ... I never heard of before. Gholston felt she was tricked by the CAP investigators, and that they were trying to mess [her] up. With respect to pretrial exposure, Gholston did read articles about the case during 1982 in the Porterville Recorder. Gholston also subscribed to the Fresno Bee and occasionally read the Bakersfield newspaper. In 1982, petitioner's case was in all the papers and on television, and she did watch the television news. As stated in the 1994 declaration, Gholston knew from her pretrial newspaper reading that petitioner supposedly discovered his wife's body when he returned to their truck after seeking help for a flat tire, that the authorities first thought Gwendolyn had been stabbed but later found out she had been shot, and that someone, probably Garay, had disassembled the alleged murder weapon and thrown it away in the mountains. Gholston first learned of the case, however, during a conversation with a neighbor. The neighbor said her husband, a paramedic, had heard at work that a man over in Terra Bella killed his wife and said somebody from Canada had done it. When Gholston heard petitioner's claim about a Canadian, she responded that it was ridiculous because nobody from Canada would do that, or why would they, or something to that effect. And that's all that was said. The neighbor agreed with Gholston's impression. However, contrary to the statement in the 1994 declaration, Gholston's skepticism about a Canadian as Gwendolyn's murderer did not cause her to conclude that petitioner was the killer, and she said nothing to the neighbor about believing petitioner was guilty. The conversation with the neighbor lasted not more than five minutes. Later, during selection of the jury, Gholston answered all voir dire questions accurately and completely, without any motive to evade. It never occurred to [her] to mention the conversation with the neighbor. Gholston told the truth when asked if she could set aside any pretrial feelings and judge the case on the evidence alone. At the time she took the oath, she did not believe petitioner was guilty; she had no way of knowing that he was or wasn't. Gholston does have a deceased Uncle Frank, and she told the CAP investigators his life story basically as recounted in the 1994 declaration. Moreover, she did think about Uncle Frank during the trial, at a time before she was asked on voir dire if there was any reason she could not be fair. However, the 1994 declaration misrepresents this experience. Gholston never literally saw or conversed with Uncle Frank, felt his spirit settle on her, or heard him speak to her, and she did not tell the interviewers otherwise. All she said and meant was that feeling the spirit of Uncle Frank, whom she considers her guardian angel, helped her clear her mind and overcome her reluctance to serve in such a stressful case. Thereafter, as she heard other panelists seek excusal, she realized she had no excuse, and her conscience would not let her proffer one. Gholston never got the feeling from Uncle Frank that she should serve, she never prayed to serve, and Uncle Frank never influenced her to serve. The interviewers messed up in drafting the declaration to that effect. Nor did she tell the interviewers she had heard from Uncle Frank that she should avenge petitioner's crimes. The interviewers made [that] up. It is also not true, and she never said, that Uncle Frank remained with her throughout the trial and reassured her that giving the death penalty was the right decision. Gholston's later 1996 declaration, attached to the return, is accurate on these points. [10] In most respects, the 1994 declaration accurately recounted the incident in the alley behind Gholston's home. Gholston was afraid of the Hamilton family, sisters and mother, throughout their attendance at the trial. Gholston and other jurors had expressed such concerns among themselves. Gholston avoided going to the courthouse restroom alone, and jurors tended to band together to walk to the parking lot. As the 1994 declaration stated, Gholston had read detective novels, and she assumed petitioner could arrange to have a juror killed. The incident in the alley occurred shortly before guilt deliberations began. Gholston had just returned home from a day in court, and she came outside to shut an open gate. She observed petitioner's sister and the sister's boyfriend sitting in a car in the alley. They must have seen her in turn, because they sped away immediately. Gholston was positive of the pair's identity because she had just seen them at the trial. Gholston did not report this incident to the court, though she should have done so. [11] However, she did immediately contact her friend, police dispatcher Rosalee Patterson, to request increased patrols. She was sure there were increased patrols for some time thereafter, though she did not actually notice them, and she did not recall telling the CAP investigators that patrols were increased. She never told other jurors about the alley incident itself because we weren't supposed to talk about this, though she may thereafter have repeated to another juror her general fear of petitioner's family.