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

Heading: testimony of inmate long

Text: At petitioner's capital trial, inmate Long testified that the day before the stabbing he heard petitioner threaten to kill fellow inmate Gardner. He also said that on the morning of the stabbing Long saw petitioner pull a prison-made knife from his clothes, stab Gardner, drop the knife, and run upstairs. In 1995 Long recanted his trial testimony, then in 1999 he retracted his recantation. The reference order directed the referee to determine whether Long heard petitioner discuss the stabbing beforehand, saw petitioner stab Gardner, and then saw petitioner run upstairs. At the reference hearing, Long invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate himself. The referee found that before petitioner's trial, while Long was housed at Chino prison with Leslie Rooks and David Calvin, these three prosecution witnesses were overheard talking about the case, stating that they had to keep their [trial] testimony consistent. The referee found that Rooks and Calvin did in fact discuss the case but, with the exception of Long, he did not find any identifiable portion of their testimony to be fabricated. At the reference hearing, inmate Ruben Howard testified that while incarcerated at Chino he overheard one of the Long/Rooks/Calvin trio say petitioner did not stab the victim. Howard also heard Long say that petitioner had nothing to do with the stabbing. The referee noted that in Long's 1995 recantation of his trial testimony against petitioner he specifically denied hearing petitioner discuss the stabbing of Gardner beforehand, seeing petitioner stab Gardner, or seeing petitioner flee up the stairs after the stabbing. Discounting Long's 1999 retraction of that recantation, the referee found that during the interview with prosecutors that led to the retraction, Long was as concerned that petitioner might get off death row so he would pose a risk to Long as he was concerned about the truth or falsity of his conflicting declarations. The fact that Long had received money and better prison housing as well as a promise that the prosecutor would make favorable recommendations at Long's parole hearing, coupled with Long's conflicting 1995 and 1999 declarations, led the referee to conclude that Long's trial testimony should not be treated as believable. The majority refuses to credit this finding by the referee because at the reference hearing Long exercised his Fifth Amendment privilege not to incriminate himself and consequently did not testify at the reference hearing other than to disclaim much memory of the crime. Thus, the majority reasons, the referee had no opportunity to assess Long's demeanor as a witness and hence Long's credibility. This court's decisions have long applied the rule that the offer of a witness, after trial, to retract his sworn testimony is to be viewed with suspicion. ( In re Weber (1974) 11 Cal.3d 703, 722, 114 Cal.Rptr. 429, 523 P.2d 229; accord, In re Hall (1981) 30 Cal.3d 408, 418, 179 Cal.Rptr. 223, 637 P.2d 690 [we routinely view recantations with suspicion].) Although, as the majority points out, two Court of Appeal decisions have said that recantations are given little credence (maj. opn., ante, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 773, 60 P.3d at p. 174), this court has never adopted that standard. This court has never intimated that a recantation automatically is given little credence. (See maj. opn., ante, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 773, 60 P.3d at p. 174.) Here the referee viewed with suspicion Long's recantation of his trial testimony, but he found that Long had fabricated his trial testimony against petitioner. I would give that finding great weight because it is supported by ample credible evidence. The majority dismisses Long's 1995 recantation of his trial testimony against petitioner and his 1999 retraction of that 1995 recantation with the cursory comment that it is clear he has lied at some point. (Maj. opn., ante, 128 Cal.Rptr.2d at p. 773, 60 P.3d at p. 174.) One cannot assume that either of Long's two versions was the truth. He may well have lied in both. What is clear is that Long is a liar. The referee found that because Long and the other inmates were housed together and because the investigators used leading and suggestive questions, the inmate witnesses were able to learn the general theory of the prosecution's case. The prosecution's theory was this: Petitioner, armed with a knife, waited outside the first floor clinic with codefendant Menefield. When fellow inmate Gardner approached, petitioner stabbed, while Menefield restrained, Gardner. In the next two to three minutes, petitioner ran upstairs to his third floor cell. Although Long did not testify at the reference hearing, and the referee thus was unable to observe his demeanor and evaluate his credibility, the referee did observe three witnesses testify about Long. Inmate Howard, who was not a trial witness, testified at the reference hearing that at Chino prison he heard Long say petitioner had nothing to do with the stabbing of inmate Gardner. Inmate Arthur Givens testified at trial that at Chino prison Long said he had not been present at the stabbing, and that he and other inmates were trying to align their trial testimony. At the reference hearing, Givens expanded upon his trial testimony: Long said he was reluctant to testify at petitioner's trial, fearing the jury would discover they were lying, but Long planned to testify in order to get out of prison. At trial inmate Yacotis testified that at Chino prison Long and Calvin were trying to tell consistent stories, but Yacotis denied overhearing lengthy coaching sessions between Long and Calvin, and denied saying he had overheard one of them say they were lying for their freedom. At the reference hearing, Yacotis testified that Long said he and the other testifying inmates would do anything to get out of prison and that Long, as the leader of the inmates who testified for the prosecution, was insistent they get their stories straight before trial. Thus, although the referee had no opportunity to assess whether inmate Long's reference hearing testimony was credible, the referee did have an opportunity to hear and assess the credibility of three other inmate witnesses who testified that before petitioner's trial Long said he intended to testify falsely that petitioner had committed the stabbing, which Long acknowledged he had not seen. Moreover, the testimony of Yacotis and Givens at the reference hearing focused on Long's motive to give false trial testimony, namely, Long's stated belief that he would be released from prison in exchange for testifying against petitioner. Unlike the referee, neither the jury nor this court has had the opportunity to hear this testimony of these three witnesses. Ample evidence presented at the reference hearing supports the referee's finding that Long's pretrial conduct and statements were at odds with his trial testimony. That evidence was bolstered by Long's 1995 recantation of his trial testimony, which he retracted in 1999 when he feared petitioner might be released from death row. (See People v. Smallwood (1986) 42 Cal.3d 415, 431, fn. 10, 228 Cal. Rptr. 913, 722 P.2d 197 [retraction of recanted trial testimony cast[s] some doubt on the credibility of the witness].) Because the referee had an opportunity to assess the credibility of three witnesses to Long's pretrial statements, and there is substantial evidence to support the referee's finding that Long's trial testimony against petitioner was false, I would adopt that finding.