Trujillo v. Lewis et al

Filing 72

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granting in part and denying in part without Prejudice 65 Motion to Expand the Record. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2012)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MARIO TRUJILLO,

7

Petitioner,

8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11

Case No.: C-11-00522-YGR
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART (AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE) MOTION
TO EXPAND THE RECORD

vs.
GREG LEWIS, Warden,
Respondent.

12
13

Petitioner has filed a Motion to Expand the Record relating to four documents or categories of
14

documents (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 65.) Petitioner seeks to include in the court record documents and
15

trial exhibits that existed before the filing of his petition and were considered by the state court when
16

it rendered its decision. (Motion at 2.) See 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(f) (“If the applicant, because of
17

indigency or other reason is unable to produce such part of the record, then the State shall produce
18

such part of the record and the Federal court shall direct the State to do so by order directed to an
19

appropriate State official.”); see also Rule 7(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
20

The specific documents identified by Petitioner are: (1) People’s trial exhibit 2-51B; (2)
21

People’s trial exhibit 2-52B; (3) the Reporter’s and Clerk’s Transcripts of the first trial in People v.
22

Trujillo; and (4) the transcript(s) of an in camera state court hearing on Petitioner’s motion to disclose
23

the identity of a confidential informant. (Motion at 1.) As to (4) (hereinafter referred to as the “In
24

Camera Transcripts”), Petitioner has never had access to this in camera record, which was sealed by
25

the state court. Petitioner requests that the state produce the In Camera Transcripts so that they may
26

be filed in this Court under seal. (Motion at 1 & 4.)
27
28

Respondent does not object to the inclusion of trial exhibits 2-51B and 2-52B. (Response to

1
2

Petitioner’s Motion to Expand the Record (“Response”) (Dkt. No. 67) at 1.) The Court GRANTS

3

Petitioner’s Motion as to these trial exhibits.

4

Respondent does not object to the inclusion of the In Camera Transcripts, as long as the

5

transcripts remain under seal for the safety of the confidential informant. (Response at 3.) The Court

6

GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion as to the In Camera Transcripts. These transcripts shall be electronically

7

filed under seal and shall not be disclosed to any party or member of the public without further court

8

order.

transcripts are voluminous. Petitioner contends that the entire record of the first trial is relevant to his

11

Northern District of California

As to the Clerk’s and Reporter’s Transcripts of the first trial, Petitioner acknowledges that the

10

United States District Court

9

habeas corpus claims because the state court considered the offer of proof and argument presented in

12

the transcript of the first trial, and Petitioner refers to this record in his petition and traverse. (Motion

13

at 2; Reply to Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion to Expand Record (“Reply”) (Dkt. No. 68) at 2.)

14

Respondent objects to this expansion of the record because the first trial transcripts are “irrelevant” to

15

the current petition. (Response at 1.) Specifically, Respondent asserts that during the prior appeal,

16

the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of the first trial records, which were relevant to the issue of

17

double jeopardy. (Id. at 2.) The double jeopardy claim was resolved in Petitioner’s favor and that

18

claim is not currently before the Court, rendering the first trial transcripts irrelevant. (Id.)

19

Respondent also asserts that the Court of Appeal did not refer to evidence adduced at the first trial, but

20

only the trial court’s ruling in the second trial. (Id.) Moreover, Respondent argues that the first trial

21

record does not support Petitioner’s claims of prejudicial error because the second trial proceeded

22

before a different judge, jury, and with a different prosecutor. (Id.)

23

Petitioner responds that the state court need not cite to material that is sought to be included in

24

the record before the Court, and that it is sufficient that the materials be relevant. (Reply at 2.) In

25

addition, Petitioner contends that in this case there is “objective evidence of prejudice” based on “the

26

evidence in the two trials [being] substantially the same and the challenged evidence or rulings

27

occurred only in the trial leading to a conviction.” (Id.)

28

2

1

Petitioner has not shown how the entire Reporter’s and Clerk’s Transcripts are relevant to

2

issues before the Court. The Court will not expand the record to include the voluminous Reporter’s

3

and Clerk’s Transcripts, but will entertain an additional motion that specifically identifies the portions

4

relevant to the petition and explains why either or both the Reporter’s Transcript and Clerk’s

5

Transcript is or are likely to contain material information. As to Petitioner’s claims of prejudicial

6

error, the Court notes that Petitioner appeals from his conviction in the second trial. Therefore, only

7

the actions of that trial judge and that jury are relevant, and broad claims of some kind of prejudicial

8

error do not justify the inclusion of all of the first trial transcripts.

9

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Motion with respect to the

Northern District of California

production of the entire Reporter’s and Clerk’s Transcripts in the first trial. This denial is WITHOUT

11

United States District Court

10

PREJUDICE to Petitioner filing another motion to expand the record with specific portions of material

12

relevant to the pending petition.

13

As noted above, the Motion is GRANTED as to trial exhibits 2-51B and 2-52B and the In

14

Camera Transcripts. The In Camera Transcripts shall be electronically filed under seal in accordance

15

with General Order 62 and shall not be disclosed to any party or member of the public without further

16

court order.

17

This Order terminates Dkt. No. 65.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: September 14, 2012

_______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3