Williams v. Davis

CourtU.S. District Court — Central District of California
Writing for the CourtDAVID O. CARTER United States District Judge
Decision Date29 March 2016
Docket NumberCase No. CV 00-10637 DOC
CitationWilliams v. Davis, Case No. CV 00-10637 DOC (C.D. Cal. Mar 29, 2016)
PartiesBARRY GLENN WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. RON DAVIS, Warden, California State Prison at San Quentin, Respondent.

DEATH PENALTY CASE [REDACTED]

ORDER GRANTING HABEAS RELIEF CLAIMS 1(E), 6(B), 11(E) AND 5(C)

The Court has conducted an evidentiary hearing regarding the prosecutorial misconduct claims set forth in the Court's December 10, 2013 Order, and has considered the post-hearing briefing submitted by the parties. Now, the Court issues the following Order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
I. Factual Background

Following a trial by jury, Petitioner was convicted of the first degree murder ofJerome Dunn.1 The sole special circumstance was that Petitioner had been previously convicted of the June 16, 1981 murder of Donald Billingsley.

The charges against Petitioner originally arose out of two incidents: the shooting deaths of Billingsley in June 1981, and Dunn in March 1982. Petitioner was initially charged with Billingsley's murder but the information for that crime was dismissed for insufficiency of the evidence presented at the preliminary hearing. After the prosecution filed a new complaint charging Petitioner with the Billingsley murder and adding another charge for the Dunn murder, the California Supreme Court ordered that the trial court sever the two murder charges. Williams v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 3d 441, 446 (1984).

A. Guilt Phase Trial

Prior to his trial for the Dunn murder, Petitioner was found guilty of one count of first degree murder for the death of Billingsley, as well as two counts of attempted murder and one count of conspiracy to commit murder. Petitioner was sentenced to 34 years to life in state prison for the Billingsley murder. Petitioner's trial for the Dunn murder commenced on October 16, 1985.

The principal witnesses against Petitioner were Patricia Lewis, an eyewitness, and Arthur Cox and John Gardner, two jailhouse informants who testified regarding Petitioner's comments to them about the Dunn murder. At the time of Dunn's murder, Petitioner, also known as "Big Time," was a member of the 89th Street Family Bloods, a street gang in South Central Los Angeles. Its rival gang was the Crips, especially the Avalon Garden Crips. Bloods wore red; Crips wore blue. On the morning of March 25, 1982, Petitioner led a meeting of Bloods in order to "protect" the neighborhood from various Crips and it was stated at the meeting that anyone who wanted to shoot rival gang members could go out and shoot.

On the afternoon of the same day, Marcellus Gray (deceased by the time of trial),along with Kathleen Gurley, drove in Gray's blue van to a Food Barn near the corner of Rosecrans and Central. Gurley testified that around 6:30 p.m., Gray came running into the market and recounted that his van had just been stolen from him at gunpoint by two African-American men. Gurley and Gray returned home after reporting the theft to the police.

Shortly after the van was stolen, it was driven towards the intersection of 88th Place and McKinley Avenue. When the van arrived at the intersection, Kenneth Hayes, and the victim, Dunn, were riding on their bicycles. Both Hayes and Dunn associated with the Grape Street Crips gang, and both were dressed in blue clothing, which was typical for Crip gang members.

At that time, Lewis was a passenger in a station wagon driven by Jean Rivers which was stopped at the stop sign on 88th Place. Lewis identified Gray's van as the one she had seen at that intersection, and described seeing two young men riding on their bicycles. When the van began to turn, she looked at the driver, whom she identified as Petitioner. She saw that Petitioner had something shiny in the upper right side of his mouth, because the occupants of the van were laughing. She also testified that as Dunn rode by, the driver of the van said, "Let's go f___ him up," and that they drove to the place where Dunn had stopped on his bicycle and spoke with Dunn. (Later, years after the trial concluded, Petitioner discovered that Lewis's testimony identifying the driver of station wagon as Jean Rivers was false; the true identity of this woman was Arlene McKay.)

As Hayes rode closer on his bicycle, he heard chattering and laughter, and stopped within three or four feet of the driver's door and could see the driver's hands on the wheel. Then, a person's hand and right arm came out of the van driver's window, holding a handgun, with the muzzle four or five inches from Dunn's head. Hayes watched as the shooter fired about four shots at Dunn, who fell from his bicycle after the first shot. Dunn jumped and blood came from his mouth and nose. In all, the shooter fired five .38-caliber bullets into Dunn's head and upper body, killing him.

Lewis testified that, as she watched the van, she leaned over and rolled down thedriver's side window because she was "nosey." Petitioner was wearing a dark jacket and Lewis saw his hand come out through the driver's side window of the van holding a gun. At that point, Rivers drove the station wagon forward and Lewis heard three or four gunshots. Rivers then drove to Lewis's home on 87th Place. Prior to entering her home, Lewis saw the van again, and Curtis Thomas (aka Bongo) and Mark Williams were in the van with Petitioner.

Less than an hour later, police recovered Gray's van approximately four blocks from the scene of the shooting. Hayes identified it as the van from the shooting.

John Gardner testified that, at about 9:00 p.m. on the evening Dunn was shot, he saw Petitioner and Petitioner told him that he had taken a rival Crip member from "out of the box" (gang jargon meaning that Petitioner had killed him). Gardner testified that Petitioner stated that it was "Silky" he had killed, but muttered under his breath that the victim was actually "Bone" (Dunn's gang name). Petitioner also discussed the murder again with Gardner a week and a half later.

Cox testified that, while he and Petitioner were in Los Angeles County Jail together, Petitioner told Cox that Blood gang member Thomas (aka Bongo), who was in the van with Petitioner when Dunn was killed, actually shot Dunn, but Petitioner had told him to shoot. Petitioner also told Cox that all of the Crips in the jail were trying to "get" him for killing Bone.

Following his arrest and prior to trial, Petitioner attempted to intimidate Lewis by arranging for a fellow gang member, Mark Williams (no relation to Petitioner and also known as "Snoop Dog") to shoot at Lewis's home while she and her family were inside. This shooting occurred on an evening in January 1983. Lewis was at home with her husband and grandson, and 45 to 50 shots were discharged into the house. Lewis, holding the baby, crawled to safety in a back bedroom. Lewis had never experienced anything similar to this event and feared for her life. Consequently, she testified falsely at the preliminary hearing that she did not know whose arm had held the gun that was used to shoot Dunn.

Kenneth Simmons, a former member of the 89th Street Family Bloods, first testified that he did not remember having a conversation with Mark Williams, but later testified that Williams had told him that Petitioner wanted Williams to scare "the lady on 87th Street who was going to court on him." Specifically, Simmons testified that, on January 7, 1983, Simmons was "getting high" with Williams and Williams told him that he and others had gone to "take care of some business" involving a witness who was testifying against Petitioner, but it "wasn't done right." Simmons testified that Williams told him it was Petitioner who wanted this "business" taken care of and that the witness lived on 87th Street. However, Mark Williams testified and denied shooting at Lewis's house and any conversation with Simmons regarding any shooting. Nevertheless, Williams admitted that he was a member of the 89th Street Family Bloods at the time of the Dunn murder and that he knew Petitioner.

Petitioner's counsel presented an alibi defense that Petitioner was with Jeanette Houston, the mother of his child, on the night of the murder and stayed overnight at the home of Petitioner's aunt, Lena Bridges. Bridges testified that, on that night, she was preparing to go to a cosmetics sales party and Petitioner and Houston stayed together that night in one of the bedrooms of the house. Edward Sanchez, a private defense investigator, testified that Houston told him these facts during an interview in August 1982. However, Houston (nee Jeanette Renee King), testified that her relationship with Petitioner ended in October 1981, although she continued to see Petitioner after that. Houston further testified she did not recall seeing Petitioner on March 25, 1982, but remembered hearing about a shooting that occurred that day. Houston also testified that she and Petitioner were together on the night after the shooting, but not on the night of the shooting. Bridges testified that Petitioner and Houston were in her home together on the evening of March 25, 1982. She also testified that Petitioner came out of the bedroom to take a call around 6:30 p.m. and then reentered the bedroom. She last saw Petitioner and Houston around 7:30 to 7:45 p.m. when she was preparing to attend a cosmetics party. To corroborate this testimony, the defense presented a receipt for cosmetics that were ordered by Bridges dated March 25,1982.

The defense also challenged the prosecution's eyewitness testimony and offered Dr. Shomer, a psychologist, as an expert on eyewitness identification. When questioned hypothetically with factors about the night of the murder described in Lewis's identification of Petitioner, Dr. Shomer opined that those factors might cause misidentification. The defense also presented Dr. Golden, a forensic dentist, who testified that approximately one-eighth of the African-American male teenagers he had examined while working at a dentistry clinic had a...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex