Wheelock v. Kernan
Filing
132
THIRD ORDER RE RECORD. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 12/19/11. (pjhlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
THOMAS FRANKLIN WHEELOCK,
9
Petitioner,
No. C 05-3878 PJH
v.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
THIRD ORDER RE RECORD
SCOTT M. KERNAN, Warden,
12
13
14
Respondent.
_______________________________/
On September 27, 2011, this fully-briefed habeas case was reassigned from the
15
Honorable Jeremy Fogel to the undersigned judge. On November 17, 2011, pursuant to
16
the court’s request, respondent lodged portions of the record that the court found were
17
missing, and the court appears to now have the entire record as lodged previously with
18
Judge Fogel. However, the court’s review of the briefs and record revealed that the
19
reporters transcripts provided to the court did not specifically include (or identify, as
20
respondent now clarifies) the actual voir dire and responses from Juror No. 8. Instead, the
21
only transcripts the court was able to locate regarding Juror No. 8's voir dire responses are
22
from July 23, 2001, following jury selection, when the trial court noted for the record
23
discussions that transpired at sidebar conferences during voir dire. R.T. 4077-78. Nor
24
does the record include Juror No. 8's questionnaire, referenced in the trial court’s
25
discussion at R.T. 4077-78.
26
Because the court concluded that the voir dire transcripts and questionnaire are
27
necessary for its adjudication of the related habeas claim, on December 12, 2011, the court
28
ordered respondent to submit them to the court.
1
On December 16, 2011, respondent notified the court that it does not have in its
2
case file the “key” necessary to identify for the court Juror No. 8's voir dire responses or
3
Juror No. 8's questionnaire. Respondent has requested those documents from the
4
Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, but does not know at this time whether the
5
documents are still in existence and/or how long it will take that office to locate the
6
documents.
documents to this court’s adjudication of the related claim, the court will afford respondent
9
additional time to locate the documents and/or information. Respondent is ORDERED to
10
submit the documents and/or a status report advising the court regarding the status of the
11
For the Northern District of California
Given the age of the case, the impending holidays, and the importance of the
8
United States District Court
7
Alameda County District Attorney’s Office’s search for the documents as soon as such
12
information becomes available but no later than Friday, January 20, 2012.
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
Dated: December 19, 2011
______________________________
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?