Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Correctional Officer Mason's Testimony at Trial

Text: Correctional Officer Sydney Mason testified at trial that he recalled issuing Pro-Keds Dude shoes in either size 9 or 10 to an inmate who resembled Petitioner. [42] (104 RT 7176-78.) Officer Mason said he did not know whether the shoes were new or used but assumed they were new because they were in a box with a lid. (104 RT 7180-81.) Based on the testimony at the evidentiary hearing and review of the trial and preliminary hearing transcripts, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate a showing of actual innocence. The Ninth Circuit was concerned that the particular type of shoe was not even available at CIM and thus Petitioner could not have been responsible for making the evidence shoe prints in his prison-issued shoes. See Cooper, 358 F.3d at 1122. This is not the case as the contracts showing the CIM purchase of the Pro-Keds Dude shoes were admitted into evidence at the trial. Former Warden Carroll was mistaken about the source of the shoes issued at CIM and their availability in retail stores. The corporate records admitted into evidence at trial confirm the sales of the shoes were to the Naval Training Center, U.S. Forestry Service, and numerous juvenile and correctional facilities and state hospitals. (Trial Exs. 84-88; Answer, Exs. 69-75.) At trial, it was known that the Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoes were not limited to prison inmates. It was also know that the Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoes were featured in Pro-Keds' wholesale catalogue. (86 RT 2638.) There is no evidence that retail sales of the Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoes were made in California. In addition, Ms. Carroll was known to the defense at the time of trial. There are phone messages from her to defense counsel and notes about securing her testimony in the defense file. (Answer, Ex. 81.) A note in the CIM vault notebook references a call made to Petitioner's defense investigator on December 17, 1984. [43] (NOL filed 4/15/05, CIM Vault, Notebook 6 at 1408.) In fact, Mr. Forbush conducted an interview of Sydney Mason at CIM regarding the tennis shoes on December 15, 1984.(NOL filed 4/15/05, CIM Vault, Notebook 6 at 1409.) Moreover, in November of 2001, defense investigator Paul Ingels contacted Ms. Carroll by telephone and she told him her belief about the tennis shoes. (8/13/04 HRT 132.) In December of 2001, Ms. Carroll permitted investigator Ingels to spend a week with her going through her papers. This was over two-and-a-half years before her eleventh-hour declaration was presented to the Ninth Circuit. (6/2/04 HRT 125 (Carroll's testimony); 8/13/04 HRT 133 (Ingels' testimony).) She was available to the defense. In addition, at the time of trial, she was freely available to the defense to freely discuss any issue. According to Stride Rite executives, Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoes were sold primarily to state institutions. The purchasing records show that CIM purchased the Dude tennis shoes from Stride Rite at the relevant time period. The testimony of Mr. Newberry and Mr. Luck demonstrate that Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoes were not sold retail in California. Carroll's unreliable hearsay is not material inculpatory evidence and does not violate Brady. Under the totality of the evidence, the Court concludes that there was no material Brady violation. (Answer, Ex. 81.) Even if the shoe had been sold retail to a few stores on the East coast, it would not change the inculpatory nature of the shoeprint evidence. Defense counsel argued, consistent with the corporate records in evidence, that the Pro-Keds were not available just to prisoners, but were available to the Navy, the Forestry Department, and all kinds of different people besides prisoners. (Answer, Ex. 71-74.) Accordingly, it was never assumed that the distribution of the shoes was limited to prison inmates; what mattered was that the shoes were linked to Petitioner. Petitioner escaped from CIM, which clearly had the Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoe for its inmates, as established by the purchase contracts. Moreover, Mr. Taylor credibly testified that he gave Petitioner a pair of the Pro-Keds Dude shoes and that Petitioner never returned them prior to his escape from CIM. These facts, combined with the consistency between the shoe print from the hideout house where Petitioner was sleeping with both the shoe print outside the Ryen master bedroom sliding glass door and the one on the sheet from the Ryens' bed, are what made the shoe-print evidence incriminating. Finally, statements by the prosecution in opening and closing argument about the availability of the Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoes were not material or prejudicial. See Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643, 94 S.Ct. 1868, 40 L.Ed.2d 431 (1974). The prosecutor based his comments on the testimony at trial. Based on testimony of Mr. Taylor and Officer Mason, Petitioner was in receipt of the Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoes at CIM and the shoeprints from these shoes were found inside the hideout house and Ryen home. In addition, there was a myriad of evidence connecting Petitioner to the murders. Therefore, even if there were a misstatement, the prosecutor's statement was not material such that the results of the proceeding would have been different. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194. Additionally, the California Supreme Court denied Petitioner's Brady claim on the merits. (Answer, Ex. 13.) Accordingly, the Court concludes Petitioner has failed to show a material Brady violation regarding the Pro-Keds Dude tennis shoes.