Opinion ID: 2567623
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 17

Heading: Albert Garber

Text: The March 27, 1997, declaration of Albert Garber, petitioner's appointed trial counsel in the Hosey case, was jointly submitted to the referee. Garber also testified in person. At the hearing, Garber stated that his memory of representing petitioner in connection with the Hosey murder was not too good, but I certainly remember the document [i.e., his declaration] that I signed in 1997. Prior to petitioner's pleading in the Hosey matter, Garber reviewed the discovery provided by the prosecution, as well as the testimony and evidence that had been presented in the Black trial. He was aware that Joe Saucedo was the only witness to identify petitioner as Hosey's killer, and he knew Saucedo was the central prosecution witness concerning the Hosey murder. During his representation of petitioner, Garber never saw the Montez letter or any documents or information concerning Montez, Sanchez, Barnes, or McDonald and the various arrangements with and payments to these individuals made by law enforcement. The first time Garber saw such documents was in March 1997, when petitioner's federal habeas corpus counsel brought them to his attention. As counsel for petitioner, Garber was familiar with the discovery provided in the Hosey case, and if any of the documents in question had been disclosed to him, he would either have kept a copy or recalled having seen it. None of the documents, however, appear in petitioner's file, which Garber has kept under his custody and control since representing petitioner. Nor are the documents of the type Garber would forget. In Garber's view, they are critical and of such importance that they would have drastically changed the strategy and tactics of this case. Having reviewed the Montez letter and the other documents attached to his declaration, Garber could say without a doubt that had I been given the attached documents I would not have advised [petitioner] to plead guilty and I would not have concurred in the plea. However, because this evidence was not provided and I was unaware of it, I advised [petitioner] to plead guilty and I concurred in the plea. In Garber's view, Saucedo could never have withstood cross-examination based upon the Montez letter, the documents concerning payments made to Saucedo, the evidence concerning deals made with other individuals to pressure Saucedo to testify against petitioner, and other impeaching evidence. Given the explosive impact of the evidence attached to his declaration, Garber never would have advised [petitioner] to plead guilty to the Hosey killing.