Opinion ID: 2580915
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: testimony of inmate cade

Text: Inmate Cade testified at petitioner's capital trial that he saw petitioner stab inmate Gardner, drop the knife, and run upstairs; shortly thereafter, while petitioner and Cade were both housed in a segregation unit, petitioner told Cade he had stabbed Gardner. This court's reference order directed the referee to determine whether Cade's trial testimony varied from what he had seen or heard at the Vacaville facility. Although Cade's testimony at the reference hearing was consistent with his trial testimony, at the reference hearing the defense presented evidence that severely undercut Cade's credibility as a witness. Newly disclosed documents and expert testimony about Cade's institutional and psychiatric history came into evidence at the reference hearing. Dr. Douglas Tucker, a forensic psychiatrist, testified that inmate Cade had a history of significant mental illness with several prior hospitalizations and in 1977 was found incompetent to stand trial. In February 1980, when Cade arrived at the Vacaville Medical Facility, medical records described him as psychotic, suffering hallucinations, and having inflicted injury on himself. By Cade's account he stopped taking his antipsychotic medication about a week before the stabbing. In Dr. Tucker's view, Cade's ability to perceive, recall, remember, and relate events on August 17, 1980, the date of inmate Gardner's stabbing, was probably somewhat impaired by the week without the medication Cade took to control aural or visual delusions. Dr. Tucker found various entries in the series of newly disclosed documents suggesting Cade was untruthful or unreliable, but Dr. Tucker offered no opinion on whether Cade had given truthful or untruthful trial testimony. As the referee notes, Dr. Tucker concluded that Cade's story was adjustable depending on what was to his advantage. Dr. Tucker further testified that although inmate Cade had a fairly severe mental illness, in conversation Cade would appear normal and could describe events he had seen. The referee specifically asked Dr. Tucker, assuming that Cade was delusional or hallucinatory, Could a delusional event be created by the suggestion of someone else, such as a person interviewing Cade who feeds him some of the facts during questioning? Tucker agreed that the effect of such suggestions could be to modify and adjust [Cade's] memory or perceived memory of what occurred. Deputy Attorney General Charles Kirk, the prosecutor at petitioner's capital trial, testified at the reference hearing that Cade did not exhibit signs of mental illness at trial, that Kirk had seen the notation insane on Cade's rap sheet, but that Cade had good recall of the stabbing. Members of the prosecution team testified at the reference hearing that in questioning Cade they had disclosed details of the stabbing, such as the number and location of Gardner's wounds. In light of the evidence summarized above, the referee concluded that although Cade's general account of the stabbing itself remained consistent with his trial testimony, his testimony at the reference hearing was evasive and often at variance with prior testimony. The referee found Cade's trial testimony not truthful. Seizing on the referee's isolated finding that Cade's reference hearing description of the stabbing was consistent with his trial testimony, the majority considers irrelevant the referee's answer to our question whether Cade's testimony varied from what he actually saw or heard at the Vacaville facility in connection with inmate Gardner's stabbing. (Maj. opn., ante, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 774, 60 P.3d at p. 175.) The majority points out that at the reference hearing Cade did not give new evidence beyond what the jury heard at trial, and therefore this court should defer to the jury's assessment of Cade's credibility [1] The majority misses the point. True there was no new evidence from Cade. Instead, there was evidence that Cade may have been delusional at the time of Gardner's stabbing, that he was anxious to tailor his story to suit the investigators, and that he was especially susceptible to having his perception of events altered by details of the crime learned from others. The jury at petitioner's capital trial, however, never heard testimony about Cade's mental health. The referee, who did, was in a better position to evaluate Cade's credibility. In my view, there is substantial evidence to support the referee's finding that inmate Cade falsely testified at petitioner's capital trial that he saw petitioner stab inmate Gardner. I would adopt the referee's finding.