Riel v. Woodford

Filing 400

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/29/10 ORDERING that within 5 days of the filed date of this order, the parties may file statements explaining any reasons why lay-witness testimony depositions cannot or should not proceed. (Owen, K)

(HC) (DP) Riel v. Woodford

Doc. 400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Respondent. 15 / 16 At the court's direction, the parties filed a stipulation regarding the methods for 17 taking the testimony of lay witnesses. See Docket No. 364. It appears to the court that there is 18 nothing preventing the parties from proceeding with the depositions in lieu of in-court testimony 19 ("testimony depositions") of lay witnesses. Within five days of the filed date of this order, the 20 parties may file statements explaining any reasons why those testimony depositions cannot or 21 //// 22 //// 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHARLES D. RIEL, Petitioner, vs. WARDEN, San Quentin State Prison, ORDER No. CIV S-01-0507 LKK KJM DEATH PENALTY CASE

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

should not proceed. If the parties agree that they may proceed, the court will rule on the methods for taking the lay witness testimony. DATED: June 29, 2010.

riel lay witness test.or

2