Holt v. Brown, et al
ORDER Upon Stipulation Regarding Evidentiary Hearing, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 09/5/17. (Martin-Gill, S)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JOHN LEE HOLT,
Case No. 1:97-cv-06210-DAD-SAB
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER UPON STIPULATION REGARDING
RON DAVIS, Warden Of San Quentin State
(Doc. No. 276)
Before the court is the stipulation of petitioner’s counsel, Robert M. Myers and Assistant
18 Federal Defender Jennifer Mann, and respondent’s counsel, Deputy Attorneys General Sean M.
19 McCoy and Peter W. Thompson, filed August 28, 2017, to an order regarding presentation of
20 evidence and expansion of the record at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 24, 2017.
The court finds good cause to grant the stipulated request. “On application for a writ of
22 habeas corpus, evidence may be taken orally or by deposition, or, in the discretion of the judge,
23 by affidavit….” 28 U.S.C. § 2246; Phillips v. Smith, 300 F. Supp. 130, 134 (S.D. Ga. 1969) (use
24 of affidavits in habeas corpus applications is within the sound discretion of the district judge).
25 “[D]ocumentary evidence, transcripts of proceedings upon arraignment, plea and sentence and a
26 transcript of the oral testimony introduced on any previous similar application [for writ of habeas
27 corpus] by or in behalf of the same petitioner, shall be admissible in evidence.” (28 U.S.C. §
28 2247.) The court “may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting additional materials
1 relating to the petition.” Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts,
2 Rule 7.
Accordingly, the parties having stipulated for purposes of the previously ordered
4 evidentiary hearing:
The report of petitioner’s expert, Dr. Pablo Stewart, (Doc. No. 266) will be his
direct testimony. Respondent may cross-examine Dr. Stewart at the evidentiary
hearing. After cross-examination, petitioner may redirect, followed by further
cross-examination by respondent, if desired. The record is expanded with Dr.
The report of respondent’s expert, Dr. Marvin Firestone (Doc. Nos. 237, 272) will
be his direct testimony.
examination by petitioner, if desired.
Petitioner may cross-examine Dr. Firestone at the
Respondent may redirect, followed by further cross-
The footnote on page 7 of Dr. Firestone’s report, which respondent filed on
October 1, 2015 (Doc. No. 237), shall not constitute part of his direct testimony.
With this limitation, the record is expanded with Dr. Firestone’s report.
The reporter’s transcripts and the clerk’s transcripts from People v. John Lee Holt,
Kern County Superior Court Case No. 39910, are deemed part of the record for
the evidentiary hearing.
Petitioner’s expert, Dr. John Marraccini, will not testify. His declaration (Exhibit
3 to petitioner’s first state habeas corpus petition, No. S057078) and his Rule 26
report (Doc. 236-1) will constitute his sole testimony. The record is expanded
with Dr. Marraccini’s report.
The record is expanded with the transcript of respondent’s deposition of Charles
Soria, taken October 5, 2007. The deposition is not submitted as a substitute for
direct examination testimony from either party.
deposition does not obligate or preclude respondent from calling Mr. Soria, nor
does it waive respondent’s right to cross-examine Mr. Soria should petitioner call
Expansion to include the
him to testify.
The parties need not redact petitioner’s date of birth and Social Security number
from any exhibit that is filed or lodged for the evidentiary hearing as these
identifiers were previously filed as part of the state habeas corpus proceedings
(California Supreme Court Case No. S057078).
The prosecution provided the note that is reproduced as Exhibit 136 to petitioner’s
first state habeas corpus petition (No. S057078) to petitioner’s trial counsel as part
of supplemental discovery in early September 1989.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 5, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?