Love v. Scribner
Decision Date | 18 February 2010 |
Docket Number | Case No. 06cv640-WQH-RBB. |
Citation | 691 F. Supp.2d 1215 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Parties | Alfredrick LOVE, Petitioner, v. L.E. SCRIBNER, Warden, Respondent. |
James Fife, Federal Defenders of San Diego, San Diego, CA, for Petitioner.
The matter before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 55) of Magistrate Judge Ruben B. Brooks, filed on November 30, 2009, recommending that the Court grant Petitioner Alfredrick Love's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1), unless Love is retried within a reasonable period of time.
In July of 2003, Love, an African-American, was tried and convicted in state court of battery on a non-confined person by a prisoner. During jury selection, after consideration of hardships, only one remaining venire-member was African-American, Gloria McGee. During the second day of jury selection, July 21, 2003, Assistant District Attorney Eric Baker exercised a peremptory challenge to excuse McGee from the jury panel.
Love made a timely objection to the prosecution's excusing McGee, arguing that the prosecution's peremptory challenge was racially motivated. The prosecution stated that McGee was excused because:
The state trial court denied Love's challenge to the prosecution's use of its peremptory challenge on the grounds that Love did not make out a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination because Love was unable to show a "pattern" of racially motivated peremptory strikes. Id. Alternatively, the trial court denied Love's challenge on the grounds that the prosecution stated a reasonable race-neutral explanation for excusing the lone remaining African-American member of the jury pool. Id. at 372-73.
On June 16, 2004, Love filed an appeal, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial based upon the prosecution's racially motivated use of a peremptory challenge. On February 2, 2005, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction.
On March 22, 2006, Love filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in this Court. (Doc. # 1). On September 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued a report and recommendation recommending that Love's Petition be denied. (Doc. # 11). On January 19, 2007, 2007 WL 173895, this Court adopted the report and recommendation and ordered judgment to be entered. (Doc. # 15).
On March 19, 2008, 278 Fed.Appx. 714, the Ninth Circuit reversed the judgment. (Doc. # 25). The Ninth Circuit stated:
Love v. Scribner, 278 Fed.Appx. 714, 718 (9th Cir.2008) (citations omitted).
On July 14, 2008, this Court referred the case to the Magistrate Judge following remand from the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. # 28). On March 12, 2009, the Magistrate Judge conducted an evidentiary hearing, at which two witnesses testified: Baker and Love. (Doc. # 43, 44-1).
On November 30, 2009, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. # 55).
Petitioner attached a transcript of a December 2008 interview of Baker as Exhibit B to Petitioner's post-evidentiary-hearing brief. (Doc. # 48). The interview was conducted by Respondent's counsel, and a transcript of the interview was prepared and provided to Petitioner's counsel. At the evidentiary hearing, neither counsel for Petitioner nor counsel for Respondent sought to introduce the interview transcript into evidence, although both referred to the prior interview.
The Magistrate Judge granted Respondent's motion to strike the transcript. (Doc. # 55 at 17-22). The Magistrate Judge stated:
Petitioner was not diligent in seeking to expand the record after the close of evidence. The Baker interview transcript is not the type of post-evidentiary hearing material for which Rule 7 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 is suited. The interview was tape recorded and does not appear to have been given under oath. The transcript is not signed, was not reviewed, and the question-and-answer session took place long after the filing of Love's habeas Petition. The content of the interview is not especially important or probative and does little to `clarify the relevant facts.'
(Doc. # 55 at 22 (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 258, 106 S.Ct. 617, 88 L.Ed.2d 598 (1986))).
In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge analyzed Love's Batson challenge at length, and concluded:
On December 17, 2009, Respondent filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 57), and on December 18, 2009, Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 58). On January 8, 2010, Petitioner filed a reply to Respondent's objections. (Doc. # 59).
Respondent summarized his objections as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Clark v. State
...the evidence earlier is bona fide; and (3) reopening will cause no undue prejudice to the nonmoving party." Love v. Scribner, 691 F.Supp.2d 1215, 1235 (S.D.Cal.2010) (quoting Rivera-Flores v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 64 F.3d 742, 746 (1st Cir.1995)). 255. Defendants fail to pass their own test......
-
Espinoza v. Hatton
...assistance of counsel claim regarding counsel's trial strategy that had not been raised in her petition); Love v. Scribner, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1232-33 (S.D. Cal. 2010) (holding that the Ninth Circuit's remand to district court was limited to holding an evidentiary hearing to decide if re......
-
Dairyland Power Coop. v. United States
..."inadvertence is not a compelling explanation" for failing to offer available evidence in the first instance. Love v. Scribner, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1235 (S.D. Cal. 2009). Third, the court must consider whether reopening would cause "undue prejudice to the nonmoving party." Rivera-Flores, ......
-
Singh v. Singh (In re Singh)
...the evidence requested should both be important as a matter preventing injustice and reasonably be available"); Love v. Scribner, 691 F. Supp. 2d 1215, 1235 (S.D. Cal. 2010), aff'd sub nom. Love v. Cate, 449 F. App'x 570 (9th Cir. 2011) ("A motion to reopen the record to submit additional e......