Mays v. Clark

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Charlene H. Sorrentino on 1/30/12, ORDERING that respondent is directed to obtain and furnish to the court, within 10 days of the date of this order, a video or compact disc recording of the entire interview between Detective Husted and Mays, or to SHOW CAUSE why a copy cannot be produced. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DARIOUS A. MAYS,

11
12
13
14

Petitioner,
vs.
KEN CLARK, Warden,
Respondent.

15
16

No. CIV S-10-533 LKK CHS

ORDER
/

Darious Mays, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

17

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. At issue is his first degree murder conviction in the

18

Sacramento County Superior Court, case number 05F01223, for which he is serving life in prison

19

without the possibility of parole.

20

On October 25, 2011, respondent was ordered to furnish the court with a copy of

21

the video recording of Detective Husted’s February 9, 2005 interview with Mays, referenced at

22

pages 29-30 of the state court of appeal’s slip opinion. At pages 29-30 of the slip opinion and the

23

modified slip opinion, attached to respondent’s answer as Exhibits A and B, respectively, the

24

state court of appeal addresses Mays’s claim that he made an unequivocal request for an attorney

25

which was allegedly not honored by Detective Husted. The state court of appeal viewed the

26

relevant portion of the video recording of the interview and found “an enormous difference
1

1

between the impression of the cold written transcript and the actual interrogation on the

2

videotape.” People v. Mays, C057099, Order Modifying Opinion and Denying Rehearing, slip.

3

op. at 29-30 (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd Dist. June 5, 2009).

4

Respondent has lodged two compact discs with the court, People’s trial Exhibits

5

69 and 74, each showing just a small portion of the interview and neither containing the portion

6

referenced at pages 29-30 of the state court of appeal’s slip opinion.

7

Pursuant to Rules 5 and 7 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the

8

United States District Courts, respondent is directed to obtain and furnish to the court, within 10

9

days of the date of this order, a video or compact disc recording of the entire interview between

10

Detective Husted and Mays, or to show cause why a copy cannot be produced.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

DATED: January 30, 2012

13
14

CHARLENE H. SORRENTINO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2