Eggleston v. Gilbert

Filing 36

ORDER to file supplemental state court record: Respondent is directed to file, on or before May 11, 2018, a copy of the three videotapes reviewed by the state trial court which depict a reenactment of the crime scene and shooting. The Court will not accept additional briefing in this matter at this time. The Clerk of Court is directed to re-note the Petition for consideration for May 11, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge David W. Christel.(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 BRIAN T. EGGLESTON, 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Petitioner, CASE NO. 3:16-CV-05159-RBL-DWC ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL STATE COURT RECORD v. MARGARET GILBERT, Respondent. The District Court has referred this action filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to United States Magistrate Judge David W. Christel. Petitioner Brian T. Eggleston filed his federal habeas Amended Petition seeking relief from a state court conviction. See Dkt. 6. In the Amended Petition, Petitioner raises the following seven grounds: (1) the trial court excluded videos made by the State of its own officers showing what occurred – evidence consistent with the defense theory; exclusion of this exculpatory evidence violated the right to present a defense; (2) the trial court excluded other exculpatory evidence in violation of the right to present a defense; (3) Petitioner was denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel at trial when counsel failed to challenge the reliability and admissibility of the State’s reconstruction testimony; (4) the trial court 24 ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL STATE COURT RECORD - 1 1 excused Deputy Garn from attending trial, and allowed the State to read his prior testimony, due to 2 his alleged but unproven inability to testify without becoming angry, violent, and unpredictable; 3 this violated the federal confrontation clause; (5) the State failed to disclose material and 4 exculpatory evidence about two raid officers in violation of Petitioner’s right to due process under 5 the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (6) Petitioner was denied his constitutional rights to a fair 6 and impartial jury when a juror was intimidated by a State’s witness and where a juror was 7 exposed to extraneous information about the case during the trial through a local newspaper; and 8 (7) the State failed to disclose material, exculpatory information about Steve McQueen, a critical 9 State’s witness. Id. 10 Respondent filed an Answer to the Amended Petition with the relevant state court 11 records. Dkt. 25, 27, 32. In the Answer, Respondent quotes portions of a state court decision that 12 relies on video reenactments of the crime scene and shooting. See Dkt. 25, p. 33. Petitioner filed 13 a Response, wherein he stated he would attempt to reach an agreement with Respondent 14 regarding production of the videotapes, which are part of the state court record. Dkt. 35, p. 3, n. 15 3. 16 The Court has reviewed the state court decision and finds the state court reviewed three 17 videotapes in deciding Ground 1. Dkt. 27, Exhibit 4, p. 30. Specifically, the state court stated, “A 18 review of the three videotapes at issue shows . . .” Id. 19 Without all relevant portions of the state court record, the Court cannot meaningfully 20 review the state court’s decision and determine if the state court’s adjudication “resulted in a 21 decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established 22 Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); see Nasby v. McDaniel, 853 F.3d 1049, 1054 (9th Cir. 2017) 23 (“Regardless of what documents the parties originally submit, it is the district court’s independent 24 ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL STATE COURT RECORD - 2 1 obligation to obtain the relevant portions of the record.”). Here, the Court reviewed the portions of 2 the state court record filed by Respondent. The Court does not find videotapes have been 3 produced as part of the relevant state court record. See Dkt. 27, 32. 4 As the Court must have all relevant portions of the record to meaningfully review the state 5 court’s decision, the Court orders the following: 6 Respondent is directed to file, on or before May 11, 2018, a copy of the three videotapes 7 reviewed by the state trial court which depict a reenactment of the crime scene and shooting. 8 The Court will not accept additional briefing in this matter at this time. 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to re-note the Petition for consideration for May 11, 2018. 10 Dated this 10th day of April, 2018. 12 A 13 David W. Christel United States Magistrate Judge 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL STATE COURT RECORD - 3

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?