Opinion ID: 1390030
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Petitioner's Claims are Denied on the Merits

Text: Petitioner alleges the prosecution failed to provide material exculpatory evidence concerning criminalist Baird's misconduct concerning heroin. (Pet. at 44-45.) If Petitioner has adjudicated a claim relating to the withholding of evidence and false testimony previously, then his latest claim alleging the same transgression must be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). The gravamen of the claim of withholding evidence and false testimony is the same, regardless of whether Petitioner presents new and different legal arguments or different factual allegations. See Babbitt, 177 F.3d at 746. Petitioner already adjudicated a claim relating to Mr. Baird's connection with heroin. Cooper I, Amend. Pet. at 387; Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 69-71. Even if Petitioner's claim were not subject to mandatory dismissal based on 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), his claim must still be dismissed because he could have presented the legal and factual basis of his pending claim previously with due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner could have discovered, with due diligence, the additional information about Mr. Baird's alleged use of heroin, particularly since Petitioner had already focused on Mr. Baird's dismissal from his employment for allegedly stealing heroin. Moreover, to support his Brady claim, Petitioner must show that the prosecution had knowledge of material exculpatory evidence that was unknown to the defense. See Agurs, 427 U.S. at 103, 96 S.Ct. 2392. This Court has already determined in adjudicating Petitioner's first federal habeas petition that the prosecution did not have knowledge of Mr. Baird's alleged dismissal or misconduct while the trial was in progress. Cooper I, 92-CV-427, Aug. 25, 1997 Order at 70. Petitioner is not entitled to a second opportunity to litigate this factual question in this Court. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner's Brady claim also fails to state a prima facie case because he has not established that Mr. Baird's alleged drug abuse constitutes material exculpatory evidence in the context of the entire record. See Agurs, 427 U.S. at 112, 96 S.Ct. 2392. Accordingly, the Court denies the habeas claim regarding Mr. Baird.

Petitioner alleges the prosecution withheld material exculpatory evidence provided by a former inmate at CIM that a Hispanic gang called A-Troop committed the Ryen/Hughes murders. (Pet. at 45.) In order to address this allegation, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on August 6, 2004, where former CIM Correctional Officer Donnie Eddings testified. (8/6/04 HRT 3.) Officer Eddings was a correctional counselor in the Reception Center who conducted intake interviews to determine what level of custody was appropriate for an inmate. She was unaware of the outstanding warrant in the CIM files for Petitioner's rape, aggravated assault, kidnaping, mayhem, and making a terrorist threat arising out of Petitioner's rape and threat to kill victim Lori S. in Pennsylvania. (8/6/04 HRT 4.) The warrant for the rape charges was in the CIM files with the name, David Trautman aka Kevin Cooper, clearly listed, but CIM egregiously erred by not linking its own records of Petitioner's rape to the false name of David Trautman. ( See NOL filed 4/15/05 CIM Vault, Notebook 9 at 2385-2417.) The Court concludes that Officer Eddings had a substantial motive to deflect guilt from Petitioner due to CIM's institutional error in placing a known rapist in minimum security. Officer Eddings testified that in 1983, inmate Luparello told her that Doug Ryens's chiropractic office in Santa Ana had been burglarized by a gang called A-Troop. (8/6/04 HRT 8-9.) Officer Eddings was told by this inmate that he thought that Mr. Ryen either pressed charges or testified against the members of the gang following the burglary. (8/6/04 HRT 8-9.) Officer Eddings prepared a written report and submitted it to her supervisor. (8/6/04 HRT 7.) The prosecution provided defense trial counsel with a memorandum written by Officer Eddings detailing the information from inmate Luparello, as well as handwritten notes regarding Luparello. ( See 04-CV-656, NOL filed 7/27/04.) Moreover, the Santa Ana Police Department reports regarding the burglary of the Ryen chiropractic office and other businesses in the same commercial complex were also provided to defense trial counsel by the prosecution. ( See 04-CV-656, NOL filed 07/27/04.) The burglary of the Ryen chiropractic office was being reported in newspaper articles discussing the Ryen/Hughes murders. A copy of a Los Angeles Times article dated June 7, 1983, which includes information on the burglary, was included in the defense trial file turned over on discovery in 1997 in connection with Petitioner's first federal habeas petition. ( See Answer, Ex. 56 (copy LA Times article re burglary, from defense trial file).) Given the discovery provided by the prosecution, there was no Brady violation. [46] Additionally, defense investigator Ingels testified that in 2002 he checked out the information regarding Eddings' allegation and found no merit to the claim. (8/13/04 HRT 141-143.) Therefore, the Court concludes there was no Brady violation regarding the Luparello or A-Troop information.
Petitioner further alleges that the prosecution withheld material exculpatory evidence from an unidentified inmate at CIM who allegedly told a correctional counsel named Richard C. Krupp that he had overheard a conversation about the murders. (Pet. at 46.) In order to address this allegation, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on August 6, 24 and 26, 2004, where Officer Krupp, correctional counselor Ted Fahey, and Lieutenant Watch Commander Cornelius Shepherd testified. (8/6/04 HRT 51; 8/24/04 HRT 42-55; 8/26/04 HRT 19-30.) After hearing the testimony of the witnesses and evaluating their credibility, the Court concludes that there was no Brady violation. In 1984, Officer Krupp was a correctional counsel. He conducted intake interviews at CIM Chino. (8/6/04 HRT 51-52.) An inmate relayed to him that three Mexicans in the San Bernardino County jail had claimed to have committed the Ryen/Hughes murders. (8/6/04 HRT 51-52.) Because the incident occurred so long ago, Officer Krupp could not remember the inmate's name. (8/6/04 HRT 68.) Officer Krupp testified that he placed this information regarding the Hispanic males in the inmate's evaluation form and then passed it on to his supervisor, Officer Fahey, and the gang coordinator supervisor, Officer Shepherd. (8/6/04 HRT 53.) Officer Krupp further testified that he discussed a phone call that was placed to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office by either Officer Fahey or Officer Shepherd with them. (8/6/04 HRT 54-57.) [47] In contrast to Officer Krupp's recollection, Officer Shepherd credibly testified before this Court that he did not speak to Officer Krupp regarding information of an inmate claiming to have committed the Ryen/Hughes murders and that he had not passed information along to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office: I was employed at California Institution for Men as a correctional lieutenant at the time of Kevin Cooper's escape. I testified at Cooper's trial regarding his escape from CIM. I have never spoken with Richard Krupp regarding information he obtained from an inmate about the Ryen murders. I did not provide any information to San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department from an inmate at CIM regarding the Ryen murders. (04-CV-656, Resp't Ex Parte Request filed Aug. 18, 2004, Shepherd Decl.; see also 8/24/04 HRT 42.) Mr. Shepherd further testified that he was a lieutenant watch commander for the east facility at CIM Chino from 1983-84 and that although he may have spoken to Mr. Krupp on occasions, it was not within his duties to discuss the substance of prisoner interviews with correctional counselors such as Mr. Krupp. (8/24/04 HRT 42, 44, 51-52, 55.) Mr. Shepherd then testified that he does not recall any meetings with Mr. Krupp or Mr. Fahey regarding the murders. (8/24/04 HRT 50, 64.) He also stated unequivocally that he did not place any phone calls to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office because such a phone call would be against procedure. (8/24/04 HRT 59.) The normal procedure would be to contact the institutional investigators at CIM Chino, who would then contact the Sheriff's Office if warranted. (8/24/04 HRT 62-63.) Consistent with Officer Shepherd's testimony, Officer Fahey, correctional counselor at CIM, also credibly testified before this Court that he does not recall any conversations or information received from any of the correctional counselors, including Officer Krupp, or with Officer Shepherd regarding the Ryen/Hughes murders. (8/26/04 HRT 19, 29-30.) Officer Fahey also testified, consistent with Officer Shepherd's testimony, that as a watch commander in the east facility, Officer Shepherd would have had no job related interaction with correctional counselors in the central facility such as Officer Krupp and Officer Fahey. (8/26/04 HRT 29-30.) He also verified that institutional procedure did not permit correctional counselors to call the Sheriff's Office. (8/26/04 HRT 22-23.) Mr. Fahey testified that in the sixteen years he was at CIM Chino, he did not once call the Sheriff's Office. (8/26/04 HRT 22-23.) The procedure would be to inform the institutional investigators of the information and then they would contact the Sheriff's, if necessary. (8/26/04 HRT 22-24.) The Court concludes that Mr. Krupp's recollection is contradicted by the credible testimony of Officers Fahey and Shepherd. As Officer Fahey and Officer Shepherd testified, they do not recall receiving any information from Mr. Krupp regarding the Ryen/Hughes murders. Officer Shepherd, as a watch commander in a separate facility would not have been in a professional position to have such information passed on to him from Officer Krupp. Moreover, the alleged phone call placed to the Sheriff's office is not credible given that both Officer Fahey and Officer Shepherd testified that the phone call would never have occurred because it was against procedure for such a phone call to take place, and they did not make the phone call. Officer Shepherd and Officer Fahey credibly testified that Officer Krupp did not speak to him regarding the hearsay statements of the three Hispanics. Officers Shepherd, Fahey and Krupp did not speak to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office regarding those hearsay statements. As with any prominent murder investigation, there were numerous rumors and false claims made in connection with the Ryen/Hughes murders, and a belated report of a multiple hearsay account by an unknown inmate does not constitute a Brady violation.
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).
Petitioner alleges a Brady violation occurred when the prosecution failed to disclose to the defense that Laurel Epler reported finding a blue shirt possibly with blood on it on Peyton Drive on the afternoon of June 6, 1983. Petitioner is incorrect. The dispatch log referencing the report of a blue shirt was disclosed to the defense before trial. ( See IV RT 6.) If Petitioner's counsel at trial was on notice as to the possible existence of material evidence and did not raise that at trial, there is a lack of diligence in raising a Brady violation. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 435, 120 S.Ct. 1479. In this instance, defense counsel was on notice of the possible existence of the blue shirt. The state court trial record documents that defense trial counsel received the daily logs from the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, which contains the reference to a blue shirt with possible blood being reported on June 6, 1983, on Peyton Drive, by Laurel Epler at 2:41 p.m., in August of 1983. ( See I CT 75-75; III (8/12/83) RT 14-15, 19; IV (9/2/83) RT 6.) Petitioner's counsel represented to the Court that he received the daily logs; the record confirms his statement. (IV RT 6.) On January 16, 1984, an amended [49] attachment to the subpoena duces tecum for materials including the complete daily logs, dispatch records, tape recordings of dispatch or communications made from June 2, 1983, to July 31, 1983, by the Sheriffs or any deputy of the SBSO concerning the investigation and search for suspects in the deaths occurring at 2943 English Road, Chino, on June 4 or 5, 1983, DR XXXXXXX-XX, and the escape and attempt to apprehend David Trautman, aka: Kevin Cooper, from CIM on June 2, 1983. (I CT 75-76.) Defense trial counsel Negus' declaration regarding items of discovery stated: The logs, dispatch records, and tape recordings include actions of officers which may not be memorialized in reports. The actions are relevant to the integrity of physical evidence, other suspects to the crime, and the issue of flight. (I CT 90.) On September 2, 1983, defense trial counsel Negus stated: I can indicate to the court that with respect to the four items in the amended subpoena [ see I CT 7576], that with respect to Item 1 [complete daily logs, dispatch records, tape recordings of dispatch or communications made from June 2, 1983, to July 31, 1983], all items except the tapes that were requested have been received. Mr. Kochis and I have agreed that the tapes will be held by the sheriff's office until such time as we can agree on what part of those tapes will be needed to be recorded for trial. If we cannot agree, then we will be coming back to the court at some future time, but mainly the tapes will be preserved until we can work that out. (IV RT 6.) The trial prosecutor confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Negus' representations to the trial court. (IV RT 6.) Moreover, it is clear that defense trial counsel appreciated the relevance of the information as it related to the integrity of physical evidence and other suspects to the crime at the time he sought the daily logs and dispatch information. ( See I CT 75-76.) John Kochis, one of the prosecuting attorneys in the Petitioner trial, testified at the evidentiary hearing that discovery and documents related to the dispatch records were provided to Petitioner's defense at trial by way of a subpoena duces tecum. (8/13/04 HRT 183-84.) Mr. Kochis testified that the San Bernardino Sheriff's daily logs from June 4-6, 1983 (Resp't Evidentiary Hr'g Ex. MMMM-PPPP), as well as the documents pertaining to the burglary of the Ryen chiropractic business in 1983 (Resp't Evidentiary Hr'g Ex. UUUU), were turned over to Petitioner's defense team at trial. (8/13/04 HRT 182-84.) Petitioner represented to the trial court that he had a copy of the daily log prior to trial. ( See I CT 75-75; III (8/12/83) RT 14-15, 19; IV (9/2/83) RT 6.) Because Petitioner represented to the trial judge that he had the daily logs, the Court relies on his representation made on the record to the court at that time. As an attorney, trial counsel has a professional obligation to be truthful to the Court. Rule of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California 5-200. Petitioner had the daily logs referencing the report of a blue shirt and the collection of that evidence was disclosed to the defense before trial. [50] Petitioner has not presented a viable Brady claim, or any other constitutional violation warranting habeas relief. The fact that Petitioner claims that trial counsel has no recollection of a blue shirt twenty-two years later is not surprising. Laurel Epler had no recollection of a blue shirt when she was interviewed about the shirt. ( See 04-CV-656, NOL filed Aug. 18, 2004, Doc. No. 187 at 5, 12-13 and 20.) Ms. Epler was contacted on August 3, 2004 about the shirt. In the recorded statement, Ms. Epler stated that she does not remember calling law enforcement regarding the shirt, she does not recall the color of the shirt, and she does not remember where the shirt was found. (04-CV-656, NOL filed August 18, 2004, Doc. No. 187 at 5, 12-13, and 20.) Ms. Epler testified before this Court that her statements at that interview were true and correct and were to the best of her best recollection. (8/26/04 HRT 124.) At the evidentiary hearing, Ms. Epler testified that she vaguely remembers finding the blue shirt when she was driving home. (8/26/04 HRT 133-34.) She testified that she could not recall exactly where the shirt was found and that she could not recall driving and seeing the shirt on the side of the road, although she believes that it must have been close to Peyton and Glenridge because that is where she regularly drove her car. (8/26/04 HRT 133-34.) She also testified that her memory of the shirt was very vague and it was only after referencing the log that mentioned the blue shirt and speaking to Petitioner's defense investigators that she recalled anything about the shirt. (8/26/04 HRT 123-24, 149.) Finally, Ms. Epler testified that she had been influenced by letters shown to her by Petitioner's attorneys regarding alleged suppression of evidence and law enforcement cover-ups in this case. (8/26/04 HRT 179-80.) She stated that she did not think Petitioner committed the murders after reading the materials sent to her by Petitioner's attorneys. (8/26/04 HRT 179-80.) Due to Ms. Epler's previous statements where she did not recall the T-shirt, its color, or the location or time it was found and given the passage of many years and failure of recollection, the Court questions whether Ms. Epler actually recalls a blue shirt. Notwithstanding, the daily logs referencing the call placed to the Sheriff's Office regarding the shirt were turned over to the defense counsel at trial and therefore are not a proper basis for a habeas claim. Respondent contends that the report of a blue shirt found on Peyton Drive listed on the Sheriff's daily log of June 6, 1983, is actually the tan T-shirt at issue in this case (Trial Ex. 169). According to Mr. Kochis, none of the documents logging the evidence at the San Bernardino Crime Lab show a blue shirt. (8/13/04 RT 198-201.) Rather, those documents only reflect the receipt of the T-shirt introduced at trial by the defense (Trial Ex. 169). (8/13/04 RT 198-201.) Moreover, Deputy Fields, now deceased, is the officer listed on the daily logs as picking up the blue shirt on Peyton Drive after Laurel Epler reported the shirt to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Office on June 6, 1983.(Resp't Evidentiary Hr'g, Ex. OOOO, at 9; 04-CV-656, Doc. No. 143.) Mr. Kochis testified that the only shirt Deputy Fields turned over to the crime lab was the T-shirt in this case (Trial Ex. 169). (8/13/04 RT 199-200.) The existence of the tan shirt is not in dispute. In fact, photographs of the tan T-shirt were taken at the time it was picked near the side of the road on Peyton Drive. (Resp't Evidentiary Hr'g, Ex. CCCCC-1 through CCCCC-5.) Petitioner argues that the tan shirt was picked up by Detective Fields on June 7, 1983, the day after the blue shirt was picked. The daily log of June 7, 1983 has no entry regarding a tan shirt. ( See NOL filed May 5, 2005 of Daily Log of June 7, 1983 for In Camera Review.) Although Detective Fields' report, dated June 10, 1983, states he picked up the tan shirt on June 7, 1983, he may have meant June 6, 1983. In any event, the tan shirt that was picked up by Detective Fields and photographed was collected and tagged with Property Tag No. A-58046 and stored in the Sheriff's evidence locker. (Traverse, Ex. 160.) At trial, Detective Fields identified the tan shirt (Trial Exhibit 169) as the T-shirt he recovered on the side of the road. (101 RT 6511.) Therefore, the blue shirt reported on June 6, 1983 is most likely the tan T-shirt (Tr. Exhibit 169) at issue in this case as testified by Mr. Kochis. (8/13/04 HRT 198-201.) Even if there were a blue shirt, there is no showing of a material Brady violation. Petitioner's blood and the victims' blood were on the tan shirt. Detective Fields, the officer who was dispatched to pick up the blue shirt, is now deceased, (04CV-656, Doc. No. 143), and Sergeant Billy Arthur, his supervisor in homicide is also deceased. (4/22/05 HRT 22.) Any further investigation would be of limited value as the two main individuals that would have any significant knowledge regarding the blue shirt are deceased, and there has been no showing of bad faith in light of the fact that defense counsel represented to the Court that he had received the daily logs. In evaluating the merits of Petitioner's claim, this Court accords deference to the California Supreme Court decision denying Petitioner's claim 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). This Court also denies this claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) because Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the facts underlying his claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for the constitutional error, no reasonable juror would have found him guilty of the Ryen/Hughes murders. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Petitioner's guilt was demonstrated by overwhelming evidence at trial, and has been reaffirmed through post-conviction DNA testing.