Roberts v. Broomfield

637 F.Supp.3d 872

Larry ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. Ron BROOMFIELD, Warden of the California State Prison at San Quentin,¹ Respondent.

No. 2:93-cv-00254 DAD-DB

United States District Court, E.D. California

Signed October 28, 2022

[637 F.Supp.3d 900]

Brian Abbington, Govt, Harry Willard Simon, Federal Public Defender's Office, Sacramento, CA, Robert Bloom, Law Offices of Robert Bloom, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner.

Glenn Richard Pruden, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents Vincent Cullen, Michael Martel, Kevin Chappell, Kelly Mitchell, Ron Davis.

Alice B. Lustre, Bruce Ortega, Dept. of Justice - Attorney General's Office Appeals, Writs and Trials, San Francisco, CA, Sean M. McCoy, Attorney General's Office for the State of California, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent Robert L. Ayers.

[637 F.Supp.3d 901]

ORDER: (1) CONDITIONALLY GRANTING HABEAS RELIEF ON PORTIONS OF PETITIONER'S GUILT PHASE CLAIMS 1 AND 7; (2) ISSUING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AS TO CLAIM 29; (3) DENYING AS MOOT PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR FINAL JUDGMENT ON CLAIM 1; and (4) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO SUBSTITUTE RON BROOMFIELD AS RESPONDENT WARDEN AND ENTER JUDGMENT

Dale A. Drozd, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Table of Contents

Section

INTRODUCTION . . . 904

BACKGROUND . . . 904

I. Factual Background . . . 904

A. Facts Presented at Trial . . . 904

1. Guilt Phase . . . 904

2. Penalty Phase . . . 905

II. Procedural Background . . . 906

LEGAL STANDARDS . . . 910

GUILT PHASE CLAIMS . . . 912

I. Evidentiary Hearing Claims . . . 912

A. Claim 1 - Prosecutorial Misconduct . . . 912

1. Legal Standards . . . 913

a. Prosecutorial Misconduct for Withholding Impeachment Evidence . . . 913

b. Prosecutorial Misconduct for Presentation of False Evidence . . . 915

2. Prosecutorial Misconduct Involving the Credibility of Witness Cade . . . 915

a. Cade's Testimony . . . 915

i. Trial Testimony . . . 915

ii. Cade's Reference Hearing Testimony . . . 916

b. Claim that Prosecution Suppressed Evidence of Cade's Mental Health . . . 918

i. Evidence Presented re Cade's Mental Health Problems . . . 918

ii. Discussion . . . 919

c. Claim that Prosecution Suppressed Evidence of Benefits Requested By and Conferred on Cade . . . 922

i. Background Facts . . . 922

ii. Discussion . . . 924

d. Claim that Prosecution Suppressed Cade's Prior Crimes . . . 926

e. Claim that Prosecution Suppressed Cade's Informant Activity . . . 927

f. Claim that Prosecution Knew Witnesses Coordinated to Give False Testimony . . . 928

g. Prejudice from Prosecutorial Misconduct re Cade's Credibility . . . 929

3. Prosecutorial Misconduct Involving the Testimony of Witness Richard Yacotis . . . 932

a. Yacotis's Trial Testimony . . . 932

b. Yacotis's 1995 Declaration . . . 933

c. Yacotis's Reference Hearing Testimony . . . 934

d. Discussion of Presentation of Yacotis's False Testimony . . . 935

4. Prosecutorial Misconduct Involving the Credibility of Witness Robert Hayes . . . 936

a. Hayes' Trial Testimony . . . 936

b. Evidence re Hayes that was not Disclosed to the Defense . . . 937

c. Discussion of Suppression of Evidence re Hayes . . . 938

5. Prosecutorial Misconduct Involving the Credibility of Witness Leslie Rooks . . . 939

a. Rooks' Trial Testimony . . . 939

b. Rooks' 1995 Declaration . . . 939

[637 F.Supp.3d 902]

c. Rooks' Reference Hearing Testimony . . . 939

d. Discussion of Suppression of Evidence re Rooks . . . 940

6. Prosecutorial Misconduct Involving the Credibility of Witness Raybon Long . . . 941

a. Long's Trial Testimony . . . 941

b. Long's 1995 Declaration . . . 942

c. Long's 1999 Declaration . . . 942

d. Long at the Reference Hearing . . . 942

e. Evidence re Long Uncovered after Trial . . . 947

f. Discussion of Presentation of Long's False Testimony . . . 949

7. Prosecutorial Misconduct Involving Victim Gardner's History of Violence . . . 950

B. Claim 7 - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at the Guilt Phase . . . 950

1. Factual Background . . . 950

2. Legal Standards . . . 952

a. Deficient Performance . . . 952

b. Prejudice . . . 953

3. Discussion . . . 954

a. Reasonableness of Counsel's Conduct . . . 954

b. Prejudice . . . 956

C. Claim 16 - Prejudicial Courtroom Security . . . 956

1. Background Facts . . . 956

2. Legal Standards . . . 957

3. Discussion . . . 959

D. Claim 29 - Removal of a Juror During Deliberations . . . 960

1. Background Facts from the Trial Record . . . 960

2. Post-trial Evidence . . . 963

a. Juror Conklin . . . 963

b. Juror Galloway . . . 964

c. Juror Edwards . . . 965

3. Legal Standards . . . 966

a. Standards for Dismissing a Juror . . . 966

b. Standards for Consideration of Juror Testimony . . . 968

4. Discussion of Removal of Juror During Deliberations . . . 970

II. Non-Evidentiary Hearing Claims re the Guilt Phase . . . 972

A. Claim 1 - Prosecutorial Misconduct . . . 973

B. Claim 2 - Decision to Seek Death Penalty Based on Impermissible Considerations . . . 982

C. Claim 3 - California's Death Penalty Statute Fails to Narrow . . . 982

D. Claim 4 - Sufficiency of the Evid. For Lying in Wait . . . 983

1. Legal Standards . . . 983

2. State Court Decision . . . 983

3. Discussion . . . 985

E. Claim 5 - Reliance at the Guilt Phase on Prior Murder Conviction . . . 985

F. Claim 6 - Prosec. Misconduct re Delay in Charging . . . 987

G. Claim 7 - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at the Guilt Phase . . . 988

1. Discussion of Unreasonable Conduct by Attorney Urquhart . . . 988

a. Failure to Cross-examine Inmate Hayes re Benefits . . . 988

b. Failure to Cross-examine Inmate Cade re Aug. 25 Interview . . . 988

c. Failure to Use Statement of Inmate Black . . . 989

2. Remaining Claims of Ineffective Assistance of Counsel at the Guilt Phase . . . 990

H. Claim 8 - Imbalance of Equities between Prosec. And Dfs. . . . 994

I. Claim 9 - Trial Court Rulings re Discovery and Disclosure . . . 996

J. Claim 10 - Denial of Change of Venue . . . 996

1. Legal Standards . . . 997

[637 F.Supp.3d 903]

2. Discussion . . . 998

K. Claim 11 - Denial of Marsden Motions . . . 999

1. Background . . . 1000

2. Legal Standards . . . 1001

3. Discussion . . . 1002

L. Claim 12 - Failure to Dismiss Information . . . 1003

M. Claim 13 - Multiple Murder Special Circumstance . . . 1004

N. Claim 14 - Improper Denial of Continuance . . . 1004

O. Claim 15 - Ineffective Assistance of Counsel during Jury Selection . . . 1005

P. Claim 16 - Excessive Courtroom Security . . . 1007

Q. Claim 17 - Improper Admission of BGF Membership . . . 1007

1. Background . . . 1008

2. Legal Standards . . . 1008

3. Discussion of Procedural Bar . . . 1009

4. Discussion of Denial of Discovery . . . 1011

5. Discussion of Admission of BGF Evidence . . . 1012

R. Claim 18 - Argument and Instruction re Petitioner's Flight from the Scene . . . 1013

S. Claim 19 - Rooks' Testimony that Petitioner Ordered him Killed . . . 1014

T. Claim 20 - Testimony that Petitioner Refused to Provide a Blood Sample . . . 1016

U. Claim 21 - Evidence of Gardner's Good Character . . . 1017

V. Claim 22 - Denial of Motion to Sever and Admission of Menefield's Statements . . . 1017

1. Severance . . . 1017

2. Confrontation Clause Error . . . 1018

a. Legal Standards . . . 1018

b. Discussion . . . 1020

W. Claim 23 - Denial of Right to Confrontation of Inmates Black and Moore . . . 1023

X. Claim 24 - Admission of Evidence of Timed Running Tests . . . 1023

Y. Claim 25 - Admission of Yacotis's Testimony in Rebuttal . . . 1024

Z. Claim 26 - Denial of Right to be Present . . . 1024

1. Legal Standards . . . 1024

2. Absence from Jury Viewing of Crime Scenes . . . 1025

a. Factual Background . . . 1025

b. Discussion . . . 1025

3. Absence from Ex Parte and In Camera Conferences . . . 1026

AA. Claim 27 - Judicial Bias . . . 1026

BB. Claim 28 - Failure to Give Jury Instructions . . . 1027

1. Instruction re Proximate Cause of Gardner's Death . . . 1027

2. Instruction re Witness Credibility . . . 1029

3. Instruction re Petitioner's Decision not to Testify . . . 1030

CC. Claim 30 - Juror Misconduct . . . 1031

DD. Claim 31 - Failure to Maintain a Complete Trial Record . . . 1031

1. Legal Standards . . . 1031

2. Responses to Jury Notes . . . 1032

3. Missing Municipal Court Transcripts . . . 1034

4. Deletions in Transcripts of Ex Parte Proceedings . . . 1035

III. Claim 32 - Prejudice from all Guilt Phase Errors . . . 1035

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY . . . 1038

CONCLUSION . . . 1039

[637 F.Supp.3d 904]

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Larry Roberts is a state prisoner under sentence of death. He seeks relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. After a lengthy and complex trial, and after evidentiary hearings in both state and federal court, this case is ready for a final decision by this court.² The undersigned has thoroughly reviewed the state and federal court records of all proceedings and the pleadings and briefs in this case. For the reasons set forth below, this court finds petitioner's Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights have been violated by pervasive prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel and grants his habeas corpus petition with respect to the guilt phase verdict. Because guilt-phase relief renders petitioner's penalty phase claims moot, the court does not address those claims. Should a higher court disagree with this court's conclusions in this regard, this court will consider the penalty phase claims at that time.

BACKGROUND

I. Factual Background

A. Facts Presented at Trial³

1. Guilt Phase

Early on the morning of August 17, 1980, Charles Gardner, an inmate at the California Medical Facility, Vacaville, walked down a first-floor corridor as his fellow inmates lounged against the walls on both sides. He emerged with 11 stab wounds that would shortly prove to be fatal. Nevertheless, he was able to grab a knife that an assailant had left on the floor. In pursuit of [inmate] Menefield, Gardner ran or staggered some distance up a flight of stairs to the second floor, where he plunged the knife into the chest of a prison guard, Officer Patch. Patch died within the hour at the prison clinic, Gardner shortly afterward.

Two issues dominated the trial: the

...