Opinion ID: 2567623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Petitioner's declaration

Text: Petitioner's testimony at the second reference hearing was presented by his declaration and was limited to his answer to the question whether he would have pleaded guilty to the Hosey murder if he had been privy to the undisclosed information at issue. Petitioner declared that if the Montez letter and the prosecution's arrangements with Barnes, Sanchez, and McDonald had been disclosed to him, he would not have entered a guilty plea in the Hosey murder case. Referee's analysis and findings: second report Judge Krauel issued Referee's Partial Rulings dated July 9, 2004, stating findings in response to parts 1 and 2 of our second reference order (see 76 Cal.Rptr.3d at pp. 187-188, 182 P.3d at 525-526, ante ) and filed his complete report, entitled Referee's Report of Proceedings, on August 20, 2004. At its outset, the referee's second report summarizes the referee's findings as follows. The Murder of BlackDeath Penalty Case. In People v. Miranda , Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 362964, Central Division, Adam Miranda (Miranda hereinafter) was found guilty of murdering Gary Black during a store robbery. Miranda's Habeas Corpus Petition concerns, in part, the evidence to rebut the testimony of a prosecution witness, Joseph Saucedo (Saucedo hereinafter), given during the penalty phase of that trial. Among the various contentions made as to why the jury should recommend the death penalty, the prosecution submitted evidence and argument that Miranda had committed another murder. The prosecution called Saucedo to testify that he had witnessed Miranda murder Robert Hosey (Hosey hereinafter) by stabbing him numerous times. In arguing for the death penalty, the prosecution told the jury that had there been any evidence that it was really Saucedo who killed Hosey, the defense would have presented it. `It wasn't [presented] because it doesn't exist.' ... The Referee finds that the rebuttal evidence did exist; it was in the possession of the prosecution before the commencement of the penalty phase of the trial, and it was not disclosed to the defense. The rebuttal evidence that pointed to Saucedo killing Hosey included: Larry Montez's (Montez hereinafter) statement to police that Saucedo had confessed to killing Hosey. Montez's letter, written to the District Attorney, in which Montez recounts the contents of Saucedo's confession to the Hosey murder. The prosecution's arrangement with Montez to secure his future testimony to convict Saucedo of murdering Hosey. Jimmie Barnes's (whose true name is Porter) statement to police that Saucedo had confessed to killing Hosey. The prosecution's arrangement with Jimmie Barnes to secure his future testimony to convict Saucedo of murdering Hosey. Marvin Sanchez's statement to police that Saucedo had confessed to killing Hosey. The prosecution's arrangement with Marvin Sanchez to secure his future testimony to convict Saucedo of murdering Hosey. Miranda's expert, Francis Bardsley, testified before this Referee that, at the time that the penalty phase of the trial was conducted for the Black murder, juries in the central division of the Los Angeles Superior Court were generally not recommending the death penalty in a case involving a single incident of murder committed during a store robbery. However, juries were recommending the death penalty when it was shown that the defendant had committed another murder at some other time. Bardsley's opinion was not refuted. Thus, this Referee finds that the defense would have used the undisclosed rebuttal evidence to effectively cross-examine Saucedo, impeaching him on a matter that was of major significance concerning whether the jury would recommend life in prison or the death penalty.