Opinion ID: 2580915
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Reference Hearing and the Referee's Findings

Text: On August 18, 1999, we issued an order to show cause why the relief prayed for should not be granted on the ground that (1) the prosecutor knowingly offered perjured testimony by other inmates against petitioner; or (2) petitioner was denied the effective assistance of counsel when counsel failed to impeach prosecution witnesses with evidence from Peter DuQuesnay [a prison guard] that the east grille gate to the third floor at the California Medical Facility, Vacaville, was kept locked at all times; or on both grounds. On March 16, 2000, we directed the referee to conduct an evidentiary hearing to make findings on several enumerated questions. [2] The reference hearing was held before Solano County Superior Court Judge Franklin R. Taft. Long, who testified at trial that he saw petitioner stab Gardner, but later recanted that testimony, and then recanted his recantation, was called as petitioner's witness but stated that, affected by the illicit use of drugs, he remembered little of what had happened 20 years before. On the advice of his counsel, he invoked the privilege against self-incrimination and did not testify. Cade reaffirmed his trial testimony that he saw petitioner stab Gardner. He acknowledged that he, Long and Hayes had discussed the case before trial when they were incarcerated in the same unit, but denied they had compared stories. Rather, Cade stated they all were nervous and reluctant to testify and just gave each other moral support. Yacotis, who testified at trial that, after the crimes, he heard petitioner discuss the killings with Menefield, but later recanted that testimony, stood by his recantation, testifying that Long and the other inmate witnesses conspired to win benefits for themselves in exchange for false testimony at petitioner's trial and reasserting that the prosecutor and his investigators had exhorted him to testify falsely at trial. Yacotis stated that the conversation he described at trial between petitioner and Menefield in the segregation unit in 1980, in which one asked the other, Why didn't you pick up the knife? never occurred. Yacotis reiterated that petitioner and Menefield were not housed near each other in the segregation wing. Ruben Lavert Howard, an inmate at the Chino state prison, testified at the reference hearing that he had heard Long, Rooks, and Calvin discuss petitioner's case. Regarding the stabbings, one of them said that Larry didn't do it, but he was in the hallway and another guy said something about, `I'm going to try to get a date out of it,' meaning a parole date. They ... said that Larry was in the hallway and that he didn't have nothing to do with the actual ... crime.... Howard testified that Rooks, Calvin, and Long all said petitioner did not commit the crime and was being framed. Long later repeated that assertion. Howard further testified that he alerted his or petitioner's family to the conspirators' plans and asked them to tell the defense lawyers, but nothing happened as a result of whatever efforts, if any, they undertook. Arthur Givens (spelled Gibens at trial) testified that at Chino, Long told him some people were trying to align their story about the Gardner stabbing to win release from prison, and he was scared the jury would find out they were lying. Calvin reaffirmed his trial testimony that he saw Menefield and another unidentified prisoner, but not petitioner, stab Gardner. He also testified that after the incident, he was in a segregation wing cell adjoining petitioner's cell for six months, and petitioner never discussed the incident there. Calvin testified that he was doing short time at the time of the stabbings he was due for parole in one and one-half yearsso the investigators had little to offer him as an inducement in exchange for his testimony. As regards prosecutorial misconduct, Payne testified that Horton told him that it would be worthwhile monetarily if he would testify petitioner ran to the third floor. Similarly, Kirk offered Payne money to testify that he saw petitioner and Menefield running up the stairs and down the hall. Payne refused. Payne further testified that the third floor grille gate was mostly locked, but added that he rarely went up to the third floor. On cross-examination, Payne stated that Kirk may not have explicitly offered him money for his testimony, but offered him some type of assistance or benefit in exchange for his testimony. The referee found [t]here was no believable evidence that there was an attempt by Kirk or the investigators to induce false testimony and that defense counsel did not overlook any potential evidence that would have tended to show that the grille gate was locked at the time of the stabbings. The referee further found that the third floor east grille gate was in fact open at the time of the stabbings. Petitioner excepts to these findings. The referee found that Long, Rooks, and Calvin had discussed the case while housed together in Chino, but concluded that Rooks and Calvin had not fabricated their trial testimony. With reference to Long, the referee stated that [biased on the conflicting 1995 and 1999 declarations and the circumstances that Long was given money and better prison housing, with representations that Kirk would appear at his parole hearing with favorable recommendations, your Referee can only find that Long's trial testimony should not be treated as believable. The referee found Yacotis's testimony recanting his trial testimony believable, stating: The Referee is aware that recantations should be viewed suspicion. However, Yacotis had served his time and had been released. He believed that should he ever find himself back in prison, his recantation of the trial testimony would cause difficulty with the authorities. He appeared to the Referee to be sincere. He had nothing to gain by recanting the trial testimony. The referee found specifically that Yacotis did not overhear the conversation between Petitioner and Menefield. The referee acknowledged that Cade's general account of the stabbing itself remained consistent although it varied from time to time regarding details of where Cade and other witnesses were located at the time of the stabbing. The referee further found, however, that Cade's testimony at the Reference hearing was evasive and often at variance with prior testimony and noted that this court had concluded in the automatic appeal that Cade's trial testimony was thoroughly impeached. The referee stated: From the above, the Referee finds that Cade's trial testimony was not truthful and varied from what he actually heard or saw. The referee noted that Hayes is reported to be deceased and did not testify at the reference hearing. The referee found that nothing was presented that would indicate that Hayes' trial testimony was false. Petitioner excepts to this finding. Similarly, the referee found that [n]othing was presented at the Reference hearing to suggest that Calvin's testimony varied from what he saw or heard.... The referee also found the trial testimony of Rooks to be credible. Petitioner excepts to this finding.