Rieman v. Gilbert
Filing
67
ORDER that the 52 Motion to allow affidavits at the evidentiary hearing is denied except as to those affidavits both parties agree to admit. In addition, petitioner's motion to expand the record 53 is granted. Signed Magistrate by Judge J Richard Creatura.(CMG)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
8
9
10
ERIN DEAN RIEMAN,
Petitioner,
11
12
13
14
v.
MARGARET GILBERT,
CASE NO. 3:16-cv-05250-RBL-JRC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
AFFIDAVITS AND GRANTING
MOTION TO EXPAND RECORD
Respondent.
15
16
The District Court has referred this petition for a writ of habeas corpus to United States
17
Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. The Court’s authority for the referral is 28 U.S.C. §
18
636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and local Magistrate Judge Rules MJR3 and MJR4. Petitioner Erin Dean
19
Rieman filed the petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
20
Petitioner asks that the Court allow the parties to provide evidence by affidavit rather
21
than live testimony at an upcoming evidentiary hearing, and to expand the record with six
22
additional documents. The purpose of the evidentiary hearing is, in part, to determine the
23
credibility of witnesses. This can best be done through live testimony. Nevertheless, to the
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AFFIDAVITS AND
GRANTING MOTION TO EXPAND RECORD - 1
1
extent that the parties agree that certain witnesses’ testimony can be presented through affidavit,
2
the Court will consider those affidavits. Also, because petitioner developed the factual basis for
3
his claims by requesting, and being denied, an evidentiary hearing in state court, and because §
4
2254(e)(2) does not bar him from presenting this additional evidence, petitioner’s motion to
5
expand the record is granted.
6
7
BACKGROUND
Petitioner originally filed this habeas petition in April of 2016. Dkt. 1. After counsel was
8
appointed and the factual record developed, the Court determined that it could not rule on
9
petitioner’s habeas petition based only on the available documentary evidence, and so ordered an
10
evidentiary hearing. Dkt. 50. Respondent filed an objection and appeal to the Court’s decision to
11
hold the evidentiary hearing (Dkt. 51), and petitioner filed his motion for affidavits and motion
12
to expand the record thereafter (Dkts. 52, 53). Following a telephone conference, the Court
13
entered a minute order striking the noting dates of the pending motions until the Honorable
14
Ronald B. Leighton ruled on respondent’s objections and appeal. Dkt. 63. Judge Leighton has
15
now entered an order denying respondent’s objections and appeal. Dkt. 64. The Court entered an
16
order rescheduling the evidentiary hearing to April 5, 2018 (Dkt. 66), and petitioner’s motion for
17
affidavits and motion to expand the record are both now ripe for consideration.
18
DISCUSSION
19
I.
20
a. Form of Evidence
21
Petitioner requests that the Court allow the parties to submit affidavits in lieu of live
Motion to Allow Affidavits
22
testimony for several witnesses. Dkt. 52. The Court may receive evidence by oral testimony,
23
deposition, or, on its discretion, affidavit. 28 U.S.C. § 2246. However, when the Court is
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AFFIDAVITS AND
GRANTING MOTION TO EXPAND RECORD - 2
1
required to make credibility determinations, it should not rely solely on documentary testimony
2
and evidence on the record unless the Court is able to “conclusively” decide the credibility
3
question with that evidence. Earp v. Ornoski, 431 F.3d 1158, 1169-70 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting
4
Watts v. United States, 841 F.2d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1988)).
5
Respondent objects to the use of affidavits, arguing, among other things, that doing so
6
would deprive respondent of the ability to effectively cross examine the witnesses in question.
7
Here, the Court ordered an evidentiary hearing in part to better make credibility determinations.
8
Therefore, allowing testimony through affidavits would undercut the Court’s ability to make
9
those credibility determinations. Earp, 431 F.3d at 1169-70. Therefore, the Court denies
10
petitioner’s motion to allow testimony by affidavit as to the affidavits of Frank Sullivan and Eric
11
L. Kiesel.
12
However, the Court notes that respondent does not object to witnesses Cynthia Villella,
13
Lee Ann Olson, Debbie Lopez-Stitt, and Patty Carrar providing written, rather than oral,
14
testimony in order to prevent additional trauma. The Court will accept these affidavits and any
15
other affidavits both parties agree are appropriate, giving these affidavits their due weight.
16
b. Admissibility of Evidence
17
Respondent also objects to the affidavits based on relevance. The Court will rule on
18
relevancy objections as part of the evidentiary hearing, but it should be noted that the sole issue
19
before the court is whether or not petitioner’s guilty plea was entered into knowingly,
20
intelligently and voluntarily. The Court is finding it difficult to see the relevance of testimony
21
from witnesses who were allegedly assaulted before petitioner’s guilty plea, and who petitioner
22
was unaware of at the time of entering his guilty plea. Such testimony would not have influenced
23
his decision to plead guilty. Similarly, the murder in Hawaii happened well after petitioner
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AFFIDAVITS AND
GRANTING MOTION TO EXPAND RECORD - 3
1
entered his plea, meaning that it also could not have had an influence on petitioner’s guilty plea.
2
Most of the testimony that is the subject of this motion seems to go one issue – to prove that non-
3
party Bremmer has committed violent acts in the past, thus showing he likely committed the
4
murder in this case. That issue is not presently before the Court, but was the subject of this
5
court’s previous ruling. See Dkt. 50. This Court previously determined that petitioner had met
6
the burden of proof on the issue of his “actual innocence” and was, therefore, excused from
7
AEDPA’s statute of limitations. Id. at 5-13. The Court noted at that time:
8
9
10
11
Taking all of the evidence into account, including evidence available at the time of
petitioner’s conviction and now, and with the benefit of the subsequent
investigation and events, the Court finds it more likely than not that if this matter
were to proceed to trial today, no reasonable juror would have found petitioner
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Therefore, petitioner is not procedurally barred from bringing the challenge to his
Alford plea and the Court may move to its merits.
12
Id. at 13.
13
The issue of “actual innocence” has been resolved for purposes of ruling on the statute of
14
limitations questions and need not be revisited at the evidentiary hearing. The parties should
15
consider that when deciding what to present at that hearing.
16
II.
Motion to Expand the Record
17
Petitioner also moves to expand the record, attaching several documents submitted to the
18
superior court, as well as an affidavit affirming the truthfulness of his habeas petition and an
19
affidavit explaining the time stamps on videos submitted by petitioner. Respondent does not
20
object to the superior court documents submitted by petitioner and the Court grants petitioner’s
21
motion as to those documents. However, respondent objects to expanding the record to include
22
the additional two documents.
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AFFIDAVITS AND
GRANTING MOTION TO EXPAND RECORD - 4
1
For the most part, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) bars
2
petitioner from presenting new evidence if that evidence was not presented to the state court. 28
3
U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2). However, “[a] petitioner who has previously sought and been denied an
4
evidentiary hearing [in state court] has not failed to develop the factual basis of his claim. Hurles
5
v. Ryan, 752 F.3d 768, 791 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Stanley v. Schriro, 598 F.3d 612, 624 (9th Cir.
6
2010)); see also Espinoza v. Spearman, 661 F. App’x 910, 914 (9th Cir. 2016).
7
Here, 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(2) is not applicable. It is true that the Washington state courts
8
denied petitioner’s personal restraint petition based on procedural grounds and that petitioner did
9
not present the evidence on which he now relies to the state courts. See Dkt. 13, Ex. 2 at 5; Ex.
10
12; Ex.14. However, petitioner did move the superior court for an evidentiary hearing, which
11
was denied, and subsequently requested that the Court of Appeals remand his case for an
12
evidentiary hearing. Id., Ex. 4 at 2; Ex. 10 at 2, 4; Dkt. 11 at 3. Because petitioner has already
13
asked the state court for an evidentiary hearing, he has properly developed the factual basis for
14
his claim in state court and § 2254(e)(2) does not bar him from presenting additional evidence
15
here. Therefore, petitioner’s motion to expand the record is granted.
16
17
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, petitioner’s motion to allow affidavits at the evidentiary
18
hearing (Dkt. 52) is denied except as to those affidavits both parties agree to admit. In addition,
19
petitioner’s motion to expand the record (Dkt. 53) is granted.
20
Dated this 8th day of March, 2018
A
21
22
J. Richard Creatura
United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR AFFIDAVITS AND
GRANTING MOTION TO EXPAND RECORD - 5
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?