Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Anthony Ruiz

Text: Petitioner also claims that a Brady violation occurred when the prosecution failed to disclose material exculpatory evidence from Anthony Ruiz that law enforcement was ordered to plant evidence inculpating Petitioner. On the eve of the execution, an acquaintance of Mr. Ruiz appeared at a press conference with information that Mr. Ruiz worked for the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department and allegedly admitted that the San Bernardino's Sheriff's Department had planted evidence to frame Petitioner. This allegation was not supported by Mr. Ruiz's testimony at the evidentiary hearing on August 6, 2004. Mr. Ruiz testified that he was never employed or associated with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, that he never worked as an informant for them, that he never had access to the crime scene, and that he never had first-hand knowledge of anything regarding the Ryen/Hughes murders. (8/06/04 HRT 76.) He never received any information from any member of the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department regarding the Ryen/Hughes murders. (8/6/04 HRT 79.) All of the information Mr. Ruiz had regarding the murders was hearsay and speculation, and he testified that he never received any information or had any contact with anyone in the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office. [48] (8/6/04 HRT 79.) The only conversations Mr. Ruiz claimed to have had with law enforcement regarding the Ryen/Hughes murders were with Jim Parsons of the Riverside County Sheriff's Department, whom Mr. Ruiz would go with on ride-a-longs. (8/6/04 HRT 103-04; 132) As admitted by Mr. Ruiz at the evidentiary hearing, these conversations with Mr. Parsons were based upon speculation and things heard on the media and on the street. (8/6/04 HRT 115) This is confirmed by Mr. Parsons, now a lieutenant with the Riverside Sheriff's Department: I had no knowledge regarding the Ryen/Hughes murders in the Chino Hills beyond what I read in the newspapers or saw on television. I had no participation in the investigation of the murders, because the crimes did not occur in Riverside County. I have no specific recollection of speaking to Ruiz about the Ryen/Hughes murders. Any conversation I would have had with Ruiz would have been based on information available in the media at that time, because I had no other source of information regarding the crimes. (04-CV-656, NOL filed Aug. 24, 2004, Parsons Decl., Doc. No. 205.) Mr. Ruiz's speculation and hearsay do not constitute material information under Brady. Petitioner's claim of evidence tampering and withholding evidence was raised in Petitioner's sixth and seventh state habeas petitions and denied on the merits by the California Supreme Court. (Sixth State Hab. Pet. at 37-54; Answer, Ex. 13.) Exhibits concerning Ruiz were filed in support of Petitioner's seventh state petition for writ of habeas corpus, and denied on procedural grounds and on the merits. (Answer, Ex. 14.) Accordingly, this Court accords deference to the California Supreme Court decision denying Petitioner's claims on the merits. See 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 on an unreasonable determination of the facts within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).