Opinion ID: 1349797
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Events leading to the second evidentiary hearing

Text: As noted above, in January 1989 petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus, in which he reasserted, inter alia, that Oglesby's testimony was admitted in violation of Massiah, supra, 377 U.S. 201, and Henry, supra, 447 U.S. 264. Petitioner failed, however, to allege facts supporting his claim. Accordingly, we concluded petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing merely to search for new evidence, and denied the petition. (S0008526, petn. den. Jan. 18, 1989.) Thereafter petitioner filed the present petition, in which he alleged newly revealed facts in support of his renewed Sixth Amendment claim, and additional due process claims. [3] Petitioner's factual allegations included the following: 1. Lieutenant Fitzgerald, a member of the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office, used George Oglesby as an informant in a murder case in 1977, and in other matters. When Oglesby was booked into jail in early 1979, Fitzgerald executed a special handling request asking that Oglesby be placed in the high power unit, where accused murderers are housed. Petitioner was subsequently booked into that same unit in mid-1979. Because Oglesby was a known informant, under customary procedure he would have been sent to the snitch unit. The fact that Oglesby was diverted to the high power unit suggests Fitzgerald was using, or planned to use, Oglesby to collect information to be used against other inmates. [4] 2. In 1978, Fitzgerald, with Oglesby's knowledge, made a secret tape recording of a telephone conversation between Oglesby and Leslie White (later revealed as a ubiquitous jailhouse informer). This tape, which was the subject of a discovery request, was not disclosed to petitioner at the prior evidentiary hearing. It allegedly shows that Oglesby and White conspired to fabricate testimony in an unrelated murder case, and that Fitzgerald, well before petitioner's case arose in mid-1979, used Oglesby as a means of securing information. 3. Another tape recording of a 1979 interview between Leslie White and investigators for the Los Angeles District Attorney's office contains charges by White that Oglesby had been forced to testify to bolster a weak prosecution case in another matter; that Lieutenant Fitzgerald attempted to assist White in fabricating an admission from a defendant named Bracero; and that Oglesby later told him (White) that Fitzgerald and Sergeant Allender made him lie, told him, made him say what to say.... Like the 1978 recording, this tape recording was the subject of a discovery order during the prior hearing, and again, it was not disclosed at that hearing. 4. Finally, an October 1989 declaration from Leslie White alleged, among other things, that Oglesby told him several times since 1981 that he had `put a story together' regarding confessions and admissions allegedly made by `Tookie' Williams [petitioner], while Oglesby and Williams were incarcerated in the Los Angeles County Jail.... Mr. Oglesby informed me that putting the story together necessitated Mr. Oglesby's doing `phone work.' That is, obtaining pertinent information by telephone from law enforcement officials to assist in the fabrication of statements. Mr. Oglesby informed me that he had gotten the `stupid nigger' [petitioner] to draw a map to incriminate him in connection with an escape plan which Mr. Oglesby was manufacturing in an attempt to reduce Mr. Oglesby's own first degree murder charge. The declaration continued: Mr. Oglesby informed me that he was told by police Sgt. John Allender to `go in there and get information' regarding Williams. Mr. Oglesby was told details pertaining to the investigation by Lieutenant Fitzgerald. I know this because Mr. Oglesby told me of Fitzgerald's statements. After obtaining an informal response from the Attorney General (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 60), and based on the allegations in the petition, we determined there was sufficient cause to reopen our earlier inquiry into petitioner's Sixth Amendment claim under Massiah, supra, 377 U.S. 201, and Henry, supra, 447 U.S. 264, to determine what part, if any, of Oglesby's testimony might have been obtained and presented in violation of the Sixth Amendment. Because we were satisfied that any such violation was nonprejudicial insofar as it affected the guilt judgment or special circumstance findings, we limited our inquiry to the possible effect of any Sixth Amendment violation on the penalty judgment. Accordingly, we issued an order commanding the Director of the Department of Corrections to show cause in this court why petitioner's sentence of death is not invalid because it is based on evidence that may have been obtained in violation of rules established in Massiah, supra, 377 U.S. 201, and Henry, supra, 447 U.S. 264. Thereafter, because the Attorney General's return raised disputed material facts on the jailhouse informant issue, we ordered a second reference hearing before Judge Egly. We directed our referee to answer two questions: 1. Was George Oglesby used by the government as an informant to solicit information from petitioner? [¶] 2. If so, on what occasions, and under what circumstances did George Oglesby elicit incriminating statements in violation of petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights? ...