Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidentiary Hearing Testimony of KS and Eckley

Text: The Court held an evidentiary hearing on April 1, 2004 where former Deputy Sheriff Ken Schreckengost, and former Deputy Eckley testified. Deputy Schrekengost was Deputy Sheriff at the Yucaipa station during the time of the murders. (4/1/05 HRT 8.) In January 1983, he was promoted to Senior Deputy and assigned as watch commander over the deputies in the field. (4/1/05 HRT 54.) He had no recollection of initialing the disposition report, but recognized his initials on the report. (4/1/04 HRT 31.) As a watch commander, the disposition reports would normally have been in his inbox because nine out of ten times the person who filled out report would not be on the same shift. (4/1/05 HRT 56.) In reviewing a disposition report, he looked to see if the report was properly filled out. (4/1/05 HRT 56.) Deputy Schreckengost stated he never discussed the coveralls with Deputy Eckley and has never seen the coveralls. (4/1/05 HRT 57.) Deputy Eckley was a former deputy of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department and was stationed at Yucaipa from 1980 to 1989. (4/1/05 HRT 73-74.) He had no recollection that Deputy Schreckengost had anything to do with the processing or signing of the report. (4/1/05 HRT 112.) Deputy Eckley did not have a discussion with Deputy Schreckengost regarding the destruction of the coveralls. He testified that he made the decision to destroy the coveralls on his own without consulting anyone. (4/1/05 HRT 115.) The testimony of Deputy Shreckengost and Deputy Eckley do not support Petitioner's claims of perjury or withholding of evidence. C. The Claims of Withholding of Evidence and False Presentation of Testimony Have No Merit Petitioner's claim concerns whether Deputy Eckley consulted someone else before he decided to destroy the coveralls. As the testimony reveals, Deputy Eckley acted on his own in destroying the coveralls. Deputy Eckley and Deputy Schreckengost did not have any discussion about the coveralls. Typically, the disposition report was in Deputy Schreckengost's inbox and he only made sure that the form was properly filled out. Petitioner comments that Deputy Eckley's destruction of the coveralls was in violation of the policies of San Bernardino Sheriff's Department (SBSD). However, the defense was aware at the time of trial that Deputy Eckley did not comply with the written policies and practices in the SBSD manual when he destroyed the coveralls. (32 RT 3194-95.) Evidence of the written policies and practices in SBSO manuals at the time the coveralls were destroyed is not newly discovered evidence. The defense was in possession of the manuals at the time of trial. See People v. Cooper, 53 Cal.3d at 817, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865(trial court did not err in not admitting into evidence sheriff's policy manuals regarding the collection and preservation of evidence). Even if Deputy Eckley violated SBSD policy concerning the destruction of evidence, it does not change his consistent testimony that he destroyed the coveralls without consulting anyone. The discovery of the disposition report does not cast doubt upon the testimony of Deputy Eckley, and does not undermine the findings and conclusions by both this Court and the California Supreme Court that the coveralls were not material exculpatory evidence in Petitioner's case. Petitioner claims that jurors would not have convicted him had they heard of Petitioner's new theories. (Pet. at 57.) Any comment by a juror concerning his/her mental process in reaching a verdict in Petitioner's trial is unsupported, inadmissible, and irrelevant to the claim presented by Petitioner. Fed.R.Evid. 606(b); [45] Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107, 117, 107 S.Ct. 2739, 97 L.Ed.2d 90 (1987) (in general juror's statements have traditionally been inadmissible to impeach a verdict); United States v. Elias, 269 F.3d 1003, 1020 (9th Cir.2001) ([a] court may not, under Rule 606(b), consider testimony `regarding the affected juror's mental processes in reaching the verdict.) Petitioner's reliance on statements from jurors is improper. No statements regarding the deliberative process are admissible. See Fed.R.Evid. 606(b). Moreover, the disposition report hardly constitutes evidence pointing away from Petitioner and does not undermine the physical evidence linking Petitioner to the crime by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This Court accords deference to the California Supreme Court's decision denying Petitioner's claim on the merits. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The state court's denial of Petitioner's claim on the merits is not contrary to clearly established federal law, and does not rest with an unreasonable determination of the facts within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Accordingly, the Court DENIES this claim on the merits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). D. Petitioner Does Not Satisfy the Requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) Further, the Court denies the claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). If Petitioner has previously adjudicated a claim relating to the destruction of the coveralls in this Court, his pending claim of withholding evidence and false testimony relating to the destruction of the coveralls must also be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The gravamen of the claim of withholding evidence and false testimony is the same, regardless of whether Petitioner presents new and different legal arguments or different factual allegations. See Babbitt, 177 F.3d at 746. Petitioner is revisiting the reasons the coveralls were destroyed, and renewing his attack on the deputy who was responsible for the coveralls' destruction. See Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Amend. Pet. at 310-13. The impact of the destruction of the coveralls on Petitioner's rights at trial has already been adjudicated by this Court, Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 51-52, and the current legal arguments and different factual allegations stemming from the discovery of a disposition report with initials signing off on the destruction of the coveralls are not sufficient to evade the mandatory dismissal requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1). See Babbitt, 177 F.3d at 746. Even if Petitioner's claim were not subject to mandatory dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), his claim is still denied because he could have presented the legal and factual basis of his pending claim previously with due diligence. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner already complained about the destruction of the coveralls in his first federal habeas petition. He was aware of Deputy Eckley's role in the destruction of the coveralls, and his testimony at Petitioner's trial regarding his decision and actions regarding the coveralls. Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Amend. Pet. at 310-13. Petitioner's defense investigator reviewed microfiche files in December of 1998, and located a card bearing the initials of the individual who approved the destruction of the coveralls. With due diligence, the card could have been located well before then, and the instant claim could have been presented in Petitioner's first federal habeas petition, that was litigated between 1992 and 1997. Beyond the due diligence showing, Petitioner would be required to demonstrate that the facts underlying his claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found him guilty of the Ryen/Hughes murders. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner does not meet this requirement. Petitioner's guilt was demonstrated by overwhelming evidence at trial, and has been reaffirmed through post-conviction DNA testing. This Court already determined, as did the California Supreme Court and the trial court, that the coveralls were not material exculpatory evidence and that the law enforcement authorities acted in good faith. Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 52; Cooper, 53 Cal.3d at 811, 281 Cal.Rptr. 90, 809 P.2d 865. Under these circumstances, Petitioner does not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).