Longan v Gilbert

Filing 20

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's 17 Motion for Clarification of the Judge's Orders issued on 6/21 and 6/22/17, signed by Magistrate Judge Theresa L Fricke.(CMG)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 4 5 6 DANIEL RAYMOND LONGAN, Case No. C16-6053 BHS 7 8 9 Petitioner, v. MARGARET GILBERT, Superintendent of the Stafford Creek Corrections Center, 10 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION Respondent. 11 This matter comes before the Court for proceedings pursuant to an order from the 12 Honorable Benjamin H. Settle, regarding a claim raised in Daniel Raymond Longan’s Petition 13 for Habeas Corpus. Dkt. 11. Having carefully considered Dkt. 11, the Order Adopting in Part and 14 Declining in Part Report and Recommendation and Remanding for Further Proceedings, and the 15 balance of the record, the Court finds that it is appropriate to grant part of the Petitioner’s request 16 for clarification (Dkt. 17) concerning the Court’s order for briefing and oral argument on the 17 issues of: 18 • whether the Petitioner waived his right to public trial as it pertains to the nonpublic 19 voir dire of a prospective juror and the striking of an additional prospective juror, 20 • whether nonpublic voir dire was a trivial closure, and • whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted. 21 22 The petitioner asks whether the issue of public trial denial, separated from the issue of 23 ineffective assistance of counsel, should be briefed by the parties. The answer to this question is 24 25 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION - 1 1 yes. The Court’s Order (Dkt. 11) referred the case to the undersigned so that briefing may be 2 considered as to both aspects of the petitioner’s allegations concerning non-public voir dire: 3 whether the Washington trial and appellate courts properly evaluated petitioner’s factual and 4 legal allegations concerning the underlying right to a public trial and the right to effective 5 assistance of counsel. As the Court’s June 7, 2017 Order (Dkt. 11 at 7-8) explains: “Accordingly, 6 the Court is left to conclude that violations of the right to a public trial, whether or not they are 7 couched in a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel, all lead to the same well-established 8 principle: Structural defects, such as the violation of the right to a public trial, defy analysis by 9 harmless-error standards.” Likewise, the Court’s Order (Dkt. 11 at 9) observes that: “[T]he 10 record is clear that a closure did occur, although there remains outstanding the issues of whether 11 that closure was ‘trivial’ or the right to a public trial was waived. . . . Accordingly, the Court 12 declines to adopt the R&R to the extent it dismisses Longan’s allegations of a public trial 13 violation based on a conclusion that there was no closure of the proceedings and that the 14 Washington courts properly applied the Strickland prejudice standard.” 15 This Court has not made assumptions or reached a conclusion regarding whether the 16 recent precedent from the United States Supreme Court in Weaver v. Massachusetts, __ U.S. __, 17 2017 WL 2674153 (2017) does or does not apply to this situation. The Court trusts that the 18 parties will address Weaver in their briefs. 19 The Court declines to revisit the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 8) in this case. The 20 petitioner’s Request for Clarification (Dkt. 17) is asking the undersigned to restate or provide 21 additional interpretation of the Report and Recommendation dated April 4, 2017, and that 22 portion of the Request for Clarification is denied. 23 24 25 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION - 2 1 Dated this 29th day of June, 2017. 2 3 4 A 5 Theresa L. Fricke United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, AND DENYING IN PART, PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION - 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?