Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus PDF
Preview Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re ) CaseNo. Sl11336 1 VICENTE BENAVIDES FIGUEROA ) (Kern County Superior Court On Habeas Corpus ) Case No. 48266) CORRECTED AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MICHAEL LAUmNCE (Bar No. 12 18 54) CWSTINA BOWE (Bar No. 195464) MONICA OTHON (Bar No. 241 543) HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER 303 Second Street, Suite 400 South San Francisco, California 94 107 Telephone: (4 15) 348-3800 Facsimile: (4 15) 348-3873 Attorneys for Petitioner Vicente Benavides Figueroa TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CORRECTED AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ................................................................................ TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i .......................................... I. . PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND 2 .................................................................................... 11. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8 .................................................................... A. Evidence Presented at Trial 10 ........................................................ B. Evidence Presented in this Petition 14 ............................................................................ 111. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION 18 .............................................. IV. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND INCORPORATION 19 ...................................... V. SCOPE OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENTIARY BASES 19 ..................................................................... ................ VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 20 ; CLAIM 1: THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE AND MISLEADING TESTIMONY ................. THAT PETITIONER CAUSED CONSUELO VERDUGO'S INJURIES 20 CLAIM 2: THE STATE PREJUDICIALLY COERCED THE TESTIMONY OF ........................................................ ESTELLA MEDINA AND CRISTINA MEDINA 47 CLAIM 3: THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE ........................................... FACTS THAT OCCURRED ON NOVEMBER 17, 1991 69 CLAIM 4: THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE AND MISLEADING TESTIMONY THAT PETITIONER CAUSED CONSUELO VERDUGO'S INJURIES THAT ............................................... SHE SUSTAINED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 17, 1991 79 CLAIM 5: THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE AND MISLEADING TESTIMONY THAT PETITIONER WAS A CHILD MOLESTER, WHEN IT HAD OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION DISPROVING ITS OWN ............................................. ALLEGATIONS WHICH IT FAILED TO DISCLOSE 99 CLAIM 6: THE STATE PRESENTED IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE CONCERNING ESTELLA MEDINA IN AN ATTEMPT TO GENERATE JUROR ..................................................................................... OUTRAGE AT PETITIONER 114 CLAIM 7: THE STATE WITHHELD MATERIAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE THAT WAS RELEVANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES AND THAT INDICATED THE PROSECUTION HAD ............................................................... MANUFACTURED FALSE TESTIMONY 124 CLAIM 8: THE STATE PREJUDICIALLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE BENEFITS OFFERED TO WITNESSES IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE WITH ..................................................................................................................... THE CASE 145 CLAIM 9: THE STATE'S RELIANCE ON PETITIONER'S ILLEGALLY OBTAINED AND INVOLUNTARY STATEMENTS AND ITS PREJUDICIAL MISCONDUCT IN INTERROGATING PETITIONER VIOLATED ....................................................... PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 149 CLAIM 10: THE STATE UNFAIRLY TARGETED PETITIONER AS THE SOLE SUSPECT AND IGNORED EVIDENCE THAT IMPLICATED OTHER ..................................................................................................................... SUSPECTS 156 CLAIM 11: THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN PREJUDICIAL MISCONDUCT ............................................................................................................ DURING TRIAL 165 CLAIM 12: PETITIONER WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVED OF THE RIGHT TO COMPETENT INTERPRETER SERVICES DURING HIS ....................................................................................................... CAPITAL TRIAL 176 CLAIM 13: PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND TO A FAIR AND RELIABLE DETERMINATION OF GUILT AND PENALTY BY TRIAL COUNSEL'S ................................................. PREJUDICIALLY DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE 190 CLAIM 14: PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO .................................................................. CONFLICT-FREE REPRESENTATION 273 CLAIM 15: SEVERAL INSTANCES OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND ............ PREJUDICIAL JUROR MISCONDUCT OCCURRED DURING TRIAL 279 CLAIM 16: THE COURT'S PRO-PROSECUTION BIAS INFECTED THE TRIAL AND SWAYED THE JURORS TO DISCREDIT THE DEFENSE AND ...................... MATERIALLY PREJUDICED THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL 284 CLAIM 17: THE STATE PRESENTED IMPROPER VICTIM IMPACT .................................................................................................................... EVIDENCE 289 CLAIM 18: THE TRIAL COURT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and PREJUDICIALLY ORDERED PETITIONER TO BE SHACKLED ..................................................................................... THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL 294 CLAIM 19: PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE PROPERLY TO INSTRUCT THE JURY OR RECTIFY JUROR CONFUSION REGARDING THE SENTENCE OF LIFE ......................................................... WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE 297 CLAIM 20: PETITlONER IS INELIGIBLE FOR A DEATH SENTENCE AND HIS CONVICTION CANNOT STAND BECAUSE OF HIS MENTAL ............................................................................................................ RETARDATION 305 CLAIM 21: PETITIONER'S DEATH SENTENCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT WAS SELECTED AND IMPOSED IN A DISCRIMINATORY, ARBITRARY, AND CAPRICIOUS FASHION AND WAS BASED ON ........................... IMPERMISSIBLE RACE AND GENDER CONSIDERATIONS 316 CLAIM 22: THE STATE'S DEATH PENALTY STATUTE FAILS TO NARROW THE CLASS OF OFFENDERS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY AND RESULTS IN IMPOSITION OF DEATH IN A CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY ........................................................................................................................ MANNER 323 CLAIM 23: PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BY THE PROCESS USED TO SELECT AND IMPANEL ..................................................................................................................... THE JURY 349 CLAIM 24: PETITIONER'S CONVICTION AND DEATH SENTENCE ARE UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY WERE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS AND THE CONSULAR CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED MEXICAN ........................................... STATES AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 355 CLAIM 25: PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO A JURY DETERMINATION OF FACTS NECESSARY TO SENTENCE HIM TO ........................................................................................................................... DEATH 367 ................................................................................................ PRAYER FOR RELIEF 381 ............................................................................................................ VERIFICATION 383 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 ................................................p assim Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304 ...............................................................3. 15 Boyde v. California (1 990) 494 U.S. 370 ...........................................................3. 74 Breard v. Greene (1 998) 528 U.S. 371 ................................................................3 62 Cage v. Louisiana (1 990) 498 U.S. 39 .................................................................3 78 Castenada v. Partida (1 977) 430 U.S. 482 ..........................................3 49, 352, 353 Duren v . Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 ..............................................................3. 49 Furman v. Georgia (1 974) 408 U.S. 23 8 ............................................................3. 27 Gregg v. Georgia (1 976) 428 U.S. 153 ..............................................................3. 47 Hicks v . Oklahoma (1980) 447 U.S. 343 ............................................................3. 54 Jones v. United States (1 999) 526 U.S. 227 .......................................................3. 69 McCleskey v. Kemp (1 987) 48 1 U.S. 279 ............................................................3 54 Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808 .............................................................2 90 Peters v. Kiff(1972) 407 U.S. 493 .......................................................................3 54 Profjtt v. Florida (1 976) 428 U.S. 242 ...............................................................3 47 Ring v. Arizona (2002) 122 S . Ct . 2428 ........................................................ passim Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275 .......................................................... 378 Walton v. Arizona (19 90) 497 U.S. 639 .............................................................. 371 In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358 ...................................................................... 374 Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280 ............................................... 354 STATE CASES Conservatorship of Roulet (1 979) 23 Cal . 3d 2 19 ............................................... 375 People v. Green (1 980) 27 Cal.3d 1 .................................................................... 327 People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal . 3d 207 ............................................................... 326 People v. Alexander (1 985) 163 Cal . App . 3d 11 8 9 ............................................ 350 People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal . 3d 1104 ............................................... 328, 332 People v. Bacigalupo (19 93) 6 Cal . 4th 457 ................................................ 33 1, 376 People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal . 3d 502 ...................................................................3 49 People v. Birden (1986) 179 Cal . App . 3d 1020. ................................................. 335 People v. Burnick (1975) 14 Cal . 3d 306 ............................................................. 375 People v. Ceja (1 993) 4 Cal . 4th 11 34 ................................................................ 334 People v. Conley (1966) 64 Cal . 2d 3 10 ..............................................................3 30 People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal . 3d 1158 ...........................................................3 35 People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal . 3d441 ............................................................... 335 People v . Edwards (1991) 54 Cal . 3d 787 ...........................................................2 89 People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal . 3d 329 ............................................................... 353 People v. Fierro (1 991) 1 Cal . 4th 173 ................................................................ 290 People v. Hayes (19 90) 52 Cal . 3d 577 ............................................................... 332 People v. Morales (1989) 48 Cal . 3d 527 ............................................................ 334 People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal . 3d 1 .................................................................. 335 People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal . 4th 1133 .................................................. 349, 353 People v. Sanders (1 990) 5 1 Cal . 3d 47 1. ............................................................ 350 People v. Stress (1988) 205 Cal . App . 3d 1259 ................. ................................. 330 ; People v. Wolff (1 964) 6 1 Cal . 2d 795 .................................................................3 30 People v. Pitts (1990) 223 Cal . App . 3d 606 ..................................................6. 67 People v . Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1 136 .....................................................6 67, 243 United States ex re1. Madej v. Schomig (N.D. I11 . Sept. 24, 2002) 2002 WL 31 133277 ...........................................................................................3. 6 36 1 'United States ex re1. Madej v . Schomig (N.D. I11 . Oct . 22, 2002) 2002 WL 31386480 ...........................................................................................3. 61, 362 Valdez v . State (Okla . Crim . App . 2002) 46 P.3d 703 .................................3 61, 363 STATUTES 1981 Cal . Stat. 404. $5 2. 7 .................................................................................3. 29 1982 Cal . Stat. 950. 5 1 ......................................................................................3..2 9 Ariz . Rev . Stat . Ann . 5 13-703(c) (West 1989) .................................................3..4 5 Conn . Gen . Stat . Ann . 53a-46a(c) (West 1985) ...............................................3. 45 Cal . Code Civ . Proc . 55 191, 197. 198.203.204. 209. 21 8.219.222. 228 ........ 354 Cal . Const . Art . I., Sec. 14 .................................................................................1. 77 Cal . Penal Code 5 187. ..................................................................................p assim Cal . Penal Code fj 188. .........................................................................................3 30 Cal . Penal Code fj 189. ................................................................................. 330 333 Cal . Penal Code 5 190.2. ............................................................................... passim Cal . Penal Code 5 190.3(a) ............................................................................ passim Cal . Penal Code tj 1 1 18.1 ..................................................................................... 3,5 Ga . Stat . Ann . 5 27-2537(c) ................................................................................. 347 Mont . Code Ann . 46-1 8.303(7), (9) (1 995) ...................................................... 332 Stats . 1977. ch . 3 16 ..............................................................................................3 27 Stats. 1993. c . 611. tj 4. 4.5. 6 .............................................................................. 329 Stats. 1995. c . 477. 5 1 .........................................................................................3 31 Stats. 1998. c . 629. 5 2 .........................................................................................3 31 Stats. 1999. c . 694. 91 .......................................................................................... 329 U.S. Const . Art . VI, 92 ......................................................................................... 356 United Mexican States and the United States of America of August 12. 1942. 57 Stat . 800 ................................................................................................ 355 Wash . Rev . Code Ann . 10.95.060(4) (West 1990) .............................................. 345 MISCELLANEOUS Bowers & Steiner. Death by Default: An Empirical Demonstration of False and Forced Choices in Capital Sentencing (1 999) 77 Tex . L . Rev . 605. 697 .....................................................................................................3.. 0 3 02 CALJIC No . 8.84.1 .............................................................................................3. 41 Consular Convention between the United Mexican States and the United States of America of August 12. 1942. 57 Stat . 800 ............................................ 355 "Developments in the Law. Race and Criminal Process " (19 88) 10 1 Harv . L . Rev . 1472. 1525-26 ....................................................................................... 317 Eisenberg & Wells. Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases (1993) 79 Cornell L . Rev . 1 ...................................................................... 302 Eisenberg et a1 . The Deadly Paradox of Capital Jurors (200 1) 74 So.Ca1. L.Rev. 371 ............................................................................................................ 301 Garvey et a1 . Correcting Deadly Confusion: Responding to Jury Inquiries in Capital Cases (2000) 85 Cornell L . Rev . 627 ......................................... 301, 303 LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States). 200 1 ICJ 104 (Judgment) ........ passim Luginbuhl & Howe. Discretion in Capital Sentencing Instructions: Guided or Misguided? (1 995) 70 Ind . L.J. 1 16 1 ................................................. 302 Schatz & Rivkind. "The California Death Penalty Scheme: Requiem for FurmanV(1997)7 2 N.Y.U. L . Rev . 1283 ...........................................................3. 25 Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes. Apr . 24. 1963. art . 1. 21 U.S.T. 325. ...................................................................3. 60 Weiner et a1 . Comprehensibility of Approved Jury Instructions in Capital Murder Cases (1995) 80 J . of Applied Psychology 455 .....................................3. 03 'Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Apr . 24. 1963. 21 U.S.T. 77. 596 U.N.T.S. .....................................................................................................3..5 5
Description:The list of books you might like
