Odle v. Calderon, C-88-4280-CAL.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
Writing for the CourtLegge
Citation65 F.Supp.2d 1065
PartiesJames Richard ODLE, Petitioner, v. Arthur CALDERON, in his capacity as Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. C-88-4280-CAL.,C-88-4280-CAL.
Decision Date11 August 1999
65 F.Supp.2d 1065
James Richard ODLE, Petitioner,
Arthur CALDERON, in his capacity as Warden of California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent.
No. C-88-4280-CAL.
United States District Court, N.D. California.
August 11, 1999.

Page 1066


Page 1067


Page 1068

Walter T. Johnson, Warren W. Wilson, Lillick & Charles, San Francisco, CA, for petitioner.

Dane R. Gillette, Office of California State, Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for respondent.


LEGGE, District Judge.


Petitioner James Richard Odle is a prisoner of the State of California, under sentence of death. He originally petitioned this court for a writ of habeas corpus in 1988. The matter is now before the court on his amended petition filed on February 16, 1993.

The procedural history of this case is summarized in this court's order granting partial summary judgment. Odle v. Calderon, 884 F.Supp. 1404, 1410-11 (N.D.Cal.1995). The amended petition raises fifty-six claims. In three prior orders, this court denied most of the claims. See Odle v. Vasquez, 754 F.Supp. 749 (N.D.Cal.1990); Odle v. Calderon, 884 F.Supp. 1404 (N.D.Cal.1995); Odle v. Calderon, 919 F.Supp. 1367 (N.D.Cal.1996).

Three claims remain. The court granted an evidentiary hearing on two of those claims, which hearing has been held and submitted for decision. The third claim is one of cumulative error. Those three claims are the subject of this order.


The two claims that were the subject of the evidentiary hearing and are now submitted before this court are Claims H and I. They allege the following. Claim H: Failure of the state to disclose that its mental health witness in petitioner's criminal trial, Dr. Paul Berg, was the target of a fraud investigation at the time he testified in the trial. Claim I: False testimony of Dr. Berg, which was material to the guilt and penalty determinations, was knowingly presented by the state. Each of those claims is alleged to have violated petitioner's constitutional rights during his trial.

As stated, this court granted an evidentiary hearing on those claims. Discovery was conducted for that hearing. Shortly before the evidentiary hearing, this court conducted a preliminary hearing on the two pending claims. With respect to Claim I, this court ruled that a mere disagreement among the mental health professionals was not a legally sufficient basis to establish falsity. The falsity has to be the falsity of a fact. And it is not the function of this habeas court to examine the competence of the medical professionals, their qualifications, or whether they used insufficient or improper methods in reaching their opinions. (See transcript of August 21, 1998). Those conclusions are supported by the case authorities which are cited below in this order.


Following additional discovery, the evidentiary hearing was held on these claims. The court heard the testimony of witnesses, and exhibits were admitted into evidence. After the hearing itself, but as a part of the hearing record, petitioner submitted the depositions of witnesses Piazza, Diaz, Singer, Yancey, and McTigue, which the court has read.

Petitioner also filed a subsequent request for this court to take judicial notice of four items, to which respondent objects:

(1) One is a set of answers to interrogatories given by respondent in this proceeding. That is certainly a proper document for this court to consider. But it does not demonstrate any fact that is not otherwise established by the record.

(2) The second is a brief by Dr. Berg's attorney in a case against Berg, from which petitioner here attempts to argue that Dr. Berg knew of the state's investigation of him at the time he testified in petitioner's trial. The court has read that brief, and concludes that it does not

Page 1069

establish what petitioner seeks to show. The brief is on the whole a social and political polemic, devoid of any facts that are material here. The inference which petitioner attempts to draw from it is not supported by the brief. And the brief does not establish any admission by Dr. Berg that would be a proper subject of judicial notice.

(3) The third document is from another case, apparently on the subject of the state Attorney General telling local agencies to comply with an injunction directed to the Attorney General in that case. However, that document is simply a submission by one side in that case, and it does not establish any facts here.

(4) The fourth is a newspaper article published at the time of petitioner's conviction, purporting to quote "an anonymous juror." Such an article is not a proper subject of judicial notice.

The parties have also filed post hearing briefs, which the court has reviewed in detail.


These claims are reviewed by this court under the following standards.

The 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) is inapplicable to this case, Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 117 S.Ct. 2059, 2068, 138 L.Ed.2d 481 (1997). Therefore, the court reviews petitioner's constitutional claims under a de novo standard. See generally 2 James S. Liebman & Randy Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure, § 30.2 at 957 (2d ed.1994); Wright v. West, 505 U.S. 277, 112 S.Ct. 2482, 120 L.Ed.2d 225 (1992). Even though the California Supreme Court denied petitioner's claims on the merits, this court can decide the legal questions and mixed questions of fact and law. Id. Because the state court held no hearing and made no written findings on these claims, there are no factual findings to which this court must defer. (See former 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), according a presumption of correctness to state fact findings after a hearing on the merits and evidenced by written findings). This court is therefore empowered to find the facts and to independently apply federal law to the facts.

A state conviction that has become final carries a general presumption of regularity. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 468, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938); McKenzie v. McCormick, 27 F.3d 1415, 1417 (9th Cir.1994); Bellew v. Gunn, 532 F.2d 1288, 1290 (9th Cir.1976). Accordingly, petitioner here bears the burden to establish that his conviction was affected by constitutional error. Id.

Because habeas proceedings are civil in nature, the usual civil preponderance of the evidence burden of proof applies. That is, petitioner bears the burden to establish the facts underlying his claims of constitutional error by a preponderance of the evidence. Johnson, 304 U.S. at 468-69, 58 S.Ct. 1019; McKenzie, 27 F.3d at 1419; Bellew, 532 F.2d at 1290. Respondent bears the burden of proof as to any affirmative defenses. See 2 Liebman & Hertz, supra, § 31.2 at 968.


As stated, claim H alleges the failure of the state to disclose that Dr. Berg, the state's mental health witness in petitioner's trial, was the target of a fraud investigation at the time he testified. It is undisputed from the record that Dr. Berg was under investigation by the Attorney General of the State of California for alleged Medi-Cal fraud at the time he testified.

This raises two possible concerns. The first is whether Dr. Berg was actually biased in the testimony he gave in support of the prosecution and against Odle. That is, did Dr. Berg slant his testimony in order to curry favor with the prosecutor, in hopes of it having some favorable effect on his investigation? The second is whether there has been a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), because this potentially impeaching evidence was not disclosed

Page 1070

to defense counsel. The court discusses each concern in order.


The issue of actual bias is easily answered. The record demonstrates, with no dispute, that neither Dr. Berg nor the prosecutors knew about the investigation by the state Attorney General.

Dr. Berg testified at Odle's trial on July 11, 1983. The Medi-Cal Fraud unit of the Attorney General's office had begun its investigation of him in February 1982. In January and February of 1983, the Medi-Cal Fraud unit conducted undercover operations directed at Berg's office.

However, Dr. Berg first learned of the investigation when a search warrant was executed at his office on October 20, 1983, several months after Berg's testimony in petitioner's case. No charges were actually filed against Dr. Berg until December 1984. And the charges against him were dismissed in 1988.

Further, District Attorney Yancey's deposition testimony shows that he did not learn about the investigation until after Odle's trial. Similarly, John McTigue, who was Chief Deputy of the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office during Odle's trial, did not learn about the investigation until Dr. Berg called to tell him that charges had been filed or were going to be filed, which was after Odle's trial.

A report identifying Dr. Berg as the target of a Medi-Cal fraud investigation was prepared by the Attorney General's office. However, there is no evidence that this report was distributed to any agency other than the Department of Health Services. In addition, Ron Bass, a former Contra Costa County deputy district attorney, moved to the Attorney General's office and worked on the same floor as Carla Singer, the Medi-Cal fraud attorney who prosecuted Dr. Berg. However, there is no evidence that Ms. Singer discussed the case against Dr. Berg with Mr. Bass.

Since the record is clear that neither Dr. Berg nor the prosecutors knew about the investigation at the time Dr. Berg testified in Odle's trial, there is no inference of actual bias.


A prosecutor has a constitutional duty to disclose material, exculpatory evidence to the defense, regardless of whether defense counsel makes a specific request. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985); Brady v. Maryland, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • U.S. v. Mariani, 98-CR-307.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • 16 Febrero 2000
    ...to search and disclose material found in agencies involved in the investigation or prosecution of the defendant. See Odle v. Calderon, 65 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1071-72 Defendants assert that they have made a threshold showing that DEP is so closely aligned with the government in the prosecution o......
  • Bolin v. Chappell, Case No. 1:99-cv-05279-LJO-SAB
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • 9 Junio 2016
    ...determination of their verdict under the Brecht standard. Lincoln v. Sunn, 807 F.2d 805, 814, n.6 (9th Cir. 1987); Odle v. Calderon, 65 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1076-77 (1999). As noted, "the Supreme Court has clearly established that the combined effect of multiple trial errors may give rise to a......
  • Seggos v. Datre, 17-CV-2684 (MKB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of New York)
    • 25 Enero 2022
    ...members of the ‘prosecution team, '” which “includes information known to other prosecutors in the same office, ” Odle v. Calderon, 65 F.Supp.2d 1065, 1071 (N.D. Cal. 1999), and to others at an agency if working with the prosecution, see United States v. Zuno-Arce, 44 F.3d 1420, 1427 (9th C......
  • Bowling v. Com., 1998-SC-0759-MR.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (Kentucky)
    • 21 Marzo 2002
    ...available background information is routinely performed, such as routine criminal background checks of witnesses." Odle v. Calderon, 65 F.Supp.2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing cases). On the other hand, the government has no duty to disclose what it does not know and could not have reasonab......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Trial
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Federal Criminal Practice
    • 30 Abril 2022
    ...undisclosed information could have substantially affected the efforts of defense counsel to impeach the witness); Odle v. Calderon , 65 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1070 (N.D. Cal. 1999) (citing United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 676, 682 (1985) (noting that prosecutor has duty to disclose exculp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT