Stanley v. Ayers

Filing 97

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 74 Petitioner's Motion for Brady/Napue Preservation Discovery. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

DARREN CORNELIUS STANLEY,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-07-4727 EMC

Petitioner,

DEATH PENALTY CASE

v.
MICHAEL MARTEL, Warden, San Quentin
Prison

12

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR BRADY/NAPUE
PRESERVATION DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 74)

Respondent.
13
___________________________________/
14
15
16

Proceedings in this capital habeas action are stayed pending a determination of Petitioner’s

17

competency, except for discovery granted for preservation purposes. (Doc. No. 39 at 2–3.)

18

Pursuant to this exception, Petitioner seeks leave to conduct discovery regarding his claims that the

19

prosecution suppressed evidence that was favorable to Petitioner and that the prosecution presented

20

false evidence at Petitioner’s trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Napue

21

v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959). The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion.

22
23

I.

INTRODUCTION

“A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to

24

discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Rather,

25

“[a] judge may, for good cause, authorize a party to conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of

26

Civil Procedure and may limit the extent of discovery.” Habeas Corpus R. 6(a). Good cause exists

27

“where specific allegations before the court show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the

28

facts are fully developed, be able to demonstrate that he is entitled to relief.” Bracy, 520 U.S. at

1

908–09 (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted).1 When good cause exists, “it is the

2

duty of the court to provide the necessary facilities and procedures for an adequate inquiry.” Id. at

3

909. Accordingly, to prevail on his Motion, Petitioner must show good cause for the discovery and,

4

in light of the stay of proceedings, a need to conduct the discovery for preservation purposes.2

5
6
7

II.
A.

DISCUSSION

Isaac Stanley
Petitioner’s brother Isaac Stanley was a critical witness for the prosecution at Petitioner’s

8

trial in 1991: Isaac identified Petitioner as the killer of Rudy Rubalcava; Isaac testified that

9

Petitioner was not intoxicated at the time of the offense; and Isaac testifed that Rubalcava yelled
“this guy tried to rob me,” thereby providing evidence of the robbery-murder special circumstance.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

In addition, Isaac testified that he did not receive any benefit from the prosecution for his testimony.

12

However, prior to his recent death, Isaac gave a preservation deposition in 2012 in connection with

13

the present federal habeas proceedings. At that deposition, Isaac largely recanted his trial testimony:

14

he stated that Petitioner was intoxicated at the time of the offense, that Petitioner acted in self-

15

defense, and that Rubalcava did not yell anything about being robbed. In addition, Isaac claimed

16

that criminal charges against him were dropped in exchange for his testimony against Petitioner.

17

A California Youth Authority evaluation of Petitioner apparently contained allegedly

18

exculpatory evidence regarding Petitioner’s mental health. This report was not provided to

19

Petitioner’s trial counsel.

20

Criminalist Alan Keel testified for the prosecution at Petitioner’s trial. Keel linked the blood

21

on sneakers that purportedly belonged to Petitioner with the victim’s blood. The prosecution did not

22

disclose to the defense that Keel was disciplined for improprieties at his laboratory.

23
24
25

1

As indicated, and contrary to Respondent’s suggestion, (e.g., Doc. No. 84 at 12), the
standard is whether Petitioner may be able to establish that he is entitled to relief, not that he
necessarily will do so.

26
2

27
28

The limitations of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 do not bar conducting the discovery
for preservation purposes, as a fully exhausted federal habeas Petition is already pending, (Doc. No.
5), and the discovery sought is related to Claims 46 and 47 in that Petition, (Doc. No. 5-4 at 25–38.)
Cf. Calderon v. United States Dist. Ct. (“Thomas”), 144 F.3d 618, 622 (9th Cir. 1998).

2

1
2

B.

Depositions and Subpoenas
Petitioner already has developed substantial evidence regarding these issues. (See Doc. No.

3

74 at 14–17, 19–23.) Petitioner now wishes to perpetuate the testimony of five adverse witnesses

4

regarding these issues: former prosecutor Theodore Landswick; former Alameda district attorney

5

inspector Robert Gannon; former Oakland police officers Ignatius Chin and Michael Sitterud; and

6

Keel. If the facts regarding these claims are fully developed, Petitioner may be able to demonstrate

7

that he is entitled to relief. The testimony of these five individuals is needed to develop these

8

claims. Accordingly, Petitioner has established good cause for the depositions. See McDaniel v.

9

United States Dist. Ct. (“Jones”), 127 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 1997). In addition, Petitioner may take
these depositions for preservation purposes, as these individuals are somewhat elderly (in their 50s,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

60s, and 70s); decades already have passed since Petitioner’s trial; and Petitioner adequately

12

explains the substance of the testimony he seeks to obtain, as Petitioner intends “to confirm the

13

known details and establish the bad faith element of his Brady/Napue claims,” (id. at 25). See

14

Thomas, 144 F.3d 618 (9th Cir. 1998); Wagenkecht v. Stinnes, 250 F.2d 414 (D.C. Cir. 1957).

15

To prepare for these depositions, Petitioner seeks leave to subpoena from the Alameda

16

District Attorney and the Oakland Police Department the case files in People v. Darren Stanley, No.

17

103289; People v. Isaac Stanley, Nos. 310738C, 08183429, 320756, 329500A, 332756, and 337418;

18

records relating to investigations of the crime laboratory in 1989–91; records relating to Keel’s

19

discharge; and Landswick’s and Keel’s personnel records. These documents are plainly relevant

20

and necessary for the taking of the depositions. Accordingly, Petitioner is entitled to subpoena the

21

documents.

22
23
24
25

III.

CONCLUSION

Good cause appearing therefor, the Court grants Petitioner’s Motion for Brady/Napue
Preservation Discovery, (Doc. No. 74).
Petitioner may issue subpoenas duces tecum to the Alameda District Attorney and the

26

Oakland Police Department for their entire case files in People v. Darren Stanley, No. 103289;

27

People v. Isaac Stanley, Nos. 310738C, 08183429, 320756, 329500A, 332756, and 337418; records

28

3

1

relating to investigations of the crime laboratory in 1989–91; records relating to criminalist Alan

2

Keel’s discharge; and Keel’s and retired prosecutor Theodore Landswick’s personnel records.

3

Petitioner may schedule and take the depositions of Landswick, Keel, former Alameda

4

district attorney inspector Robert Gannon, and former Oakland police officers Ignatius Chin and

5

Michael Sitterud on dates and at places acceptable to counsel for Respondent.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: May 10, 2013
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4