Opinion ID: 712187
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Federal Habeas Proceedings--Circuit Court--Stay Request

Text: 33 After the district court denied their request for a temporary stay of the scheduled state criminal proceedings or expedited consideration of their habeas petition, Petitioners submitted to a panel of this court a request for emergency relief from the order of the district court. See Fed. R.App. P. 8. The panel heard oral arguments on Saturday, July 15, 1995. Questions during argument demonstrated that the panel was particularly concerned with whether the State had identified any prejudice to the prosecution or Petitioners resulting from the jury's having viewed the photographs in Set 1 without their formal admission into evidence. As the following colloquy reveals, the State's attorney conceded that the photographs in Set 1 were relevant, were not unduly prejudicial, and were, in fact, admissible: 34 THE COURT: All right. Is there any question in your mind, Mr. Zelenka, as an experienced attorney that, had the Defense said, Your Honor, we move [the Set 1 photographs] into evidence, and the State had said, No objection, that they would have been marked as an exhibit? 35 STATE'S ATTORNEY: At the time of that trial I do not see any reason why they would not have been introduced as an exhibit. That's right. 36 THE COURT: Today--today, Mr. Zelenka, can you give this Court any reason why these photographs shown as [Set 1] are not relevant evidence and properly admissible either by the State or by the Defense? 37 STATE'S ATTORNEY: This evidence could have been admitted at the time of that particular trial. 38 THE COURT: That's not my question.... Is there any reason why these photographs in [Set 1] are not relevant evidence and properly admissible either offered by the State or by the Defense? 39 STATE'S ATTORNEY: No, sir. 40 THE COURT: All right, sir.... So, this is relevant evidence. There's no reason it should not have been before the jury, other than the fact [that] the Defendant didn't say, We move into evidence? 41 STATE'S ATTORNEY: That's correct. 42 .... 43 THE COURT: Was there any reason other than the technical reason [that the defense failed to move the photographs into evidence], that these photographs should not have properly been shown to the jury, as [Set 2 and Set 3] were during the course of the trial? 44 STATE'S ATTORNEY: In my analysis of these photographs, these are not the type of photographs that the state court system would have excluded from evidence based upon a prejudicial factor. 45 THE COURT: So you offer no reason why it would have been improper for these photographs to have been admitted into evidence and shown to the jury? 46 STATE'S ATTORNEY: No reason at all once Mr. Counts authenticates the documentation. 47 Transcript of July 15, 1995 Arguments at 28-31 (emphasis added). The State also conceded that there was no rule of law or procedure that prevented Officer Counts from being recalled to the stand so that the defense could move the admission of the photographs. In further questioning from the panel, the State opined that the photographs in Set 1 showed more clearly what appeared to be blood in or near the areas marked with yellow tape. Following a conference at the conclusion of the hearing, the panel, by a vote of two to one, denied the requested relief. 48 On Monday, July 17, 1995, Petitioners sought en banc review of the order denying temporary relief. And, on July 20, 1995, a majority of the active circuit judges voted in favor of granting temporary relief from the order of the district court. We remanded to the district court with instructions to rule on the merits of the habeas petition as expeditiously as possible. Gilliam v. Foster, 61 F.3d 1070 (4th Cir.1995) (en banc).