04/08/2005 Request for - tompainetootompainetoo.com/docs/Death Penalty/Habeas/Habeas docket...

Supreme Court

Change court

Court data last updated: 04/04/2018 06:14 PM

Docket (Register of Actions)

MASTERS (JARVIS J.) ON H.C.Case Number S130495

Date Description Notes01/07/2005 Petition for writ of

habeas corpusfiled

Petitioner: Jarvis J. Masters Attorney: Jeanette L. Lebell Attorney: Joseph Baxter

Attorney: Richard I. Targow by attorneysJoseph Baxter, Richard I. Targow and Jeanette L.Lebell. (1 volume - 122 pp.)

01/07/2005 Exhibit(s) filed

(AA) in support of petition for writ of habeas corpus.(1 volume - 159 pp.)

01/07/2005 Filed: Proof of service of petition for writ of habeas

corpus and exhibitis in support of petition.

01/07/2005 Informal responserequested

(Rule 60); due 2/7/2005. Any reply due within30 days of service and filing response. If counselfind it necessary to request additional time, thecourt will consider requests for extensions of timein 30-day increments only.

02/03/2005 Filed: "Erratum in Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus." (1 pp.)

02/08/2005 Request forextension of timefiled

to file informal response. (1st request)

02/15/2005 Extension of timegranted

to 3/9/2005 to file the informal response to thepetition for writ of habeas corpus. After that date,only two further extensions totaling about 60additional days will be granted. Extension isgranted based upon Senior Assistant AttorneyGeneral Gerald A. Engler's representation that heanticipates filing that document by 5/9/2005.

03/09/2005 Request for

extension of timefiled

to file informal response. (2nd request)


to 4/8/2005 to file the informal response to thepetition for writ of habeas corpus. After that date,only one further extension totaling about 30additional days will be granted. Extension isgranted based upon Senior Assistant AttorneyGeneral Gerald A. Engler's representation that heanticipates filing that document by 5/9/2005.

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=1862173&doc_no=S130495&request_token=NiIwLSIkXkw7WzBdSCFNSENIIFw0UDxfICJeVzNSICAgCg%3D%3D


to file informal response. (3rd request)


to 5/9/2005 to file the informal response to thepetition for writ of habeas corpus. Extension isgranted based upon Senior Assistant AttorneyGeneral Gerald A. Engler's representation that heanticipates filing that document by 5/9/2005. Afterthat date, no further extension is contemplated.



to file informal response. (4th request)


to 5/23/2005 to file the informal response tothe petition for writ of habeas corpus. Extensionis granted based upon Senior Assistant AttorneyGeneral Gerald A. Engler's representation that heanticipates filing that document by 5/23/2005.After that date, no further extension will begranted.

05/23/2005 Informal response

filed (AA) by respondent. (31 pp. - 8152 words)


to file reply to informal response. (1st request)

06/17/2005 Filed: Amended declaration of atty Richard Targow insupport of application for extension of time to filereply to informal response.

06/21/2005 Extension of time

granted to 7/22/2005 to file the reply to the informalresponse to the petition for writ of habeas corpus.After that date, only two further extensionstotaling about 60 additional days arecontemplated. Extension is granted based uponcounsel Joseph Baxter's representation that heanticipates filing that document by 9/20/2005.



to file reply to informal response. (2nd request)


to 8/22/2005 to file the reply to the informalresponse to the petition for writ of habeas corpus.After that date, only one further extension totalingabout 30 additional days is contemplated.Extension is granted based upon counsel JosephBaxter's representation that he anticipates filingthat document by 9/20/2005.



to file reply to informal response. (3rd request)


to 9/20/2005 the reply to the informal responseto the petition for writ of habeas corpus.Extension is granted based upon counsel JosephBaxter's representation that he anticipates filing

that document by 9/20/2005. After that date, nofurther extension will be granted.

09/19/2005 Reply to informal

response filedPetitioner: Jarvis J. Masters

Attorney: Jeanette L. Lebell Attorney: Joseph Baxter

Attorney: Richard I. Targow by attorneysJoseph Baxter, Richard Targow & JeanetteLebell. (36 pp.)

01/17/2007 Received: letter from atty Richard Targow, dated January

13, 2007, re "Notice of Unavailability of Counsel," during the period of January 30 throughFebruary 12, 2007.

02/14/2007 Order to show

cause issued The Director of Corrections and Rehabilitationis ordered to show cause before this court, whenthe matter is placed on calendar, why petitioner isnot entitled to relief because (1) material falseevidence was admitted at the guilt phase of histrial; (2) newly discovered evidence castsfundamental doubt on the prosecution's guilt-phase case; (3) petitioner's trial wasfundamentally unfair because prosecutionwitness Rufus Willis' testimony was unreliabledue to improper coercion by the prosecution, (4)the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland (1963)373 U.S. 83 by failing to disclose the promises ofleniency to prosecution witness Bobby Evans andother facts bearing on Evans' credibility that havecome to light after the judgment was imposed, (5)the prosecution knowingly presented the falsetestimony of Bobby Evans, (6) petitioner's trialwas fundamentally unfair because Bobby Evans'testimony was unreliable due to impropercoercion by the prosecution, (7) material falseevidence-the testimony of Johnny Hoze-wasadmitted at the penalty phase regardingpetitioner's participation in the murder of DavidJackson; and (8) newly discovered evidenceregarding Hoze's testimony casts fundamentaldoubt on the accuracy and reliability of thepenalty-phase proceedings, as alleged in ClaimsII, III and V of the petition. The return must befiled in this court on or before March 16, 2007.Kennard and Werdegar, JJ., would issue theorder to show cause on the additional ground thatnewly discovered evidence regarding Hove'stestimony casts fundamental doubt on theaccuracy and reliability of the penalty-phaseproceedings, as alleged in Claims II, III and V ofthe petition. Votes: George, C.J., Kennard,Baxter, Werdegar, Chin, Moreno and Corrigan,JJ.

02/14/2007 Order filed The order filed on February 14, 2007 issuing

an order to show cause is hereby amended toread in its entirely; "The Director of Corrections

and Rehabilitation is ordered to show causebefore this court, when the matter is placed oncalendar, why petitioner is not entitled to reliefbecause (1) material false evidence was admittedat the guilt phase of his trial; (2) newly discoveredevidence casts fundamental doubt on theprosecution's guilt-phase case; (3) petitioner'strial was fundamentally unfair becauseprosecution witness Rufus Willis' testimony wasunreliable due to improper coercion by theprosecution, (4) the prosecution violated Brady v.Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 by failing todisclose the promises of leniency to prosecutionwitness Bobby Evans and other facts bearing onEvans' credibility that have come to light after thejudgment was imposed, (5) the prosecutionknowingly presented the false testimony of BobbyEvans, (6) petitioner's trial was fundamentallyunfair because Bobby Evans' testimony wasunreliable due to improper coercion by theprosecution, (7) material false evidence-thetestimony of Johnny Hoze-was admitted at thepenalty phase regarding petitioner's participationin the murder of David Jackson; and (8) newlydiscovered evidence regarding Hoze's testimonycasts fundamental doubt on the accuracy andreliability of the penalty-phase proceedings, asalleged in Claims II, III and V of the petition. "Thereturn must be filed in this court on or beforeMarch 16, 2007. "Kennard and Werdegar, JJ.,would issue the order to show cause on theadditional grounds that newly presented evidenceestablishes petitioner is actually innocent of thecrimes for which he was convicted and that hisexecution would violate the federal Constitutionbecause he is actually innocent, as alleged inClaim II. "



to file the return to the order to show cause.(1st request)


to May 15, 2007 the return to the order to showcause . After that date, only one further extensiontotaling about 30 additional days is contemplated.Extension is granted based upon SeniorAssistant Attorney General Gerald A. Engler'srepresentation that he anticipates filing thatdocument by June 14, 2007.



to file the return to the order to show cause.(2nd request)


to June 14, 2007 to file the return to the orderto show cause. After that date, no furtherextension is contemplated. Extension is grantedbased upon Senior Assistant Attorney General

Gerald A. Engler's representation that heanticipates filing that document by June 14, 2007.



to file the return to the order to show cause.(3rd request)


to July 16, 2007 to file the return to the order toshow cause. After that date, no further extensionwill be granted. Extension is granted based uponSenior Assistant Attorney General Gerald A.Englar's representation that he anticipates filingthat document by July 16, 2007.

07/16/2007 Written return filed by Respondent. (30 pp.)

07/16/2007 Exhibit(s) filed

(AA) respondent's exhibit in support of return toorder to show cause. (74 pp.)

07/16/2007 Received: CD of electronic version of Respondent's

exhibit in support of return to order to showcause.



to file reply to return to order to show cause.(1st request)


Good cause appearing, and based uponcounsel Joseph Baxter's representation that heanticipates filing the reply to the return to theorder to show cause by December 31, 2007,counsel's request for an extension of time inwhich to file that document is granted to October15, 2007. After that date, only two furtherextensions totaling about 77 additional days arecontemplated.

08/22/2007 Note: related habeas funds request filed in related

AA case No. S016883.


to file reply to return to order to show cause.(2nd request)


Good cause appearing, and based uponcounsel Joseph Baxter's representation that heanticipates filing the reply to the return to theorder to show cause by December 31, 2007,counsel's request for an extension of time inwhich to file that document is granted toDecember 14, 2007. After that date, only onefurther extension totaling about 17 additionaldays is contemplated.

11/29/2007 Application filed to: petitioner's application for order compelling

disclosure of (1) unredacted Harold Richardsondocuments, (2) the identity of confidentialinformant #1, and (3) confidential documentsrelated to Charles Drume.

12/14/2007 Opposition filed by respondent to petitioner's application for

order compelling disclosure of sealed material.

12/14/2007 Request for reply to return to order to show cause. (3rd


request)


Good cause appearing, and based uponcounsel Joseph Baxter's representation that heanticipates filing the reply to the return byFebruary 12, 2008, counsel's request for anextension of time in which to file that document isgranted to February 13, 2008. After that date, nofurther extension is contemplated.

12/31/2007 Filed: by petitioner's reply to opposition to petitioner's

application for order compelling disclosure of (1)unredacted Harold Richardson documents, (2)the identity of confidential informant #1, and (3)confidential documents related to Charles Drume.

01/16/2008 Order filed Appellant/Petitioner's "Application for Order

Compelling Disclosure" filed on November 29,2007, is held in abeyance pending the filing ofpetitioner's reply to respondent's return to theorder to show cause and further order of thiscourt.

02/11/2008 Reply to return

filed by petitioner. (29 pp.)

04/09/2008 Reference hearingordered

THE COURT: Based on the record in thismatter and good cause appearing: TheHonorable Verna Adams, Presiding Judge of theSuperior Court of California, County of Marin, isdirected to select a Judge of the Superior Courtof California, County of Marin to sit as a refereein this proceeding and promptly to notify thiscourt of the referee selected. After appointmentby this court, the referee will take evidence andmake findings of fact on the following questionsregarding the case of People v. Jarvis J. Masters(Marin County Superior Court No. 10467; JudgeBeverly B. Savitt): 1. Was false evidenceregarding petitioner's role in the charged offensesadmitted at the guilt phase of petitioner's trial? Ifso, what was that evidence? 2. Is there newlydiscovered, credible evidence indicative ofpetitioner's not having been a participant in thecharged offenses? If so, what is that evidence? 3.What, if any, promises or threats were made toguilt phase prosecution witness Rufus Willis byDistrict Attorney Investigator Charles Numark orDeputy District Attorneys Edward Berberian orPaula Kamena? Was Willis's trial testimonyaffected by any such promises or threats, and, ifso, how? 4. Were there promises, threats or factsconcerning guilt phase prosecution witnessBobby Evans's relationship with law enforcementagencies of which Deputy District AttorneysBerberian and Kamena were, or should havebeen, aware, but that were not disclosed to thedefense? If so, what are those promises, threats

or facts? 5. Did Deputy District AttorneysBerberian and Kamena knowingly present falsetestimony by Bobby Evans? If so, what was thattestimony? 6. What, if any, promises or threatswere made to Bobby Evans by District AttorneyInvestigator Numark, Department of CorrectionsInvestigator James Hahn, or Deputy DistrictAttorneys Berberian and Kamena? Was Evans'strial testimony affected by any such promises orthreats, and, if so, how? 7. Did penalty phaseprosecution witness Johnny Hoze provide falsetestimony regarding petitioner's involvement inthe murder of inmate David Jackson? If so, whatwas that false testimony? It is further ordered thatthe referee prepare and submit to this court areport of the proceedings conducted pursuant tothis appointment, of the evidence adduced, andthe findings of fact made.

04/09/2008 Letter sent to: Judge Verna Adams, Presiding Judge,

regarding selection of judge to sit as referee.

04/15/2008 Received: letter from Judge Verna Adams, dated April 14,2008.

04/30/2008 Letter sent to: appointed referee.

04/30/2008 Referee appointed THE COURT: Based on the record in this

matter and good cause appearing: TheHonorable John Stephen Graham, Judge of theSuperior Court of California, County of Marin, isappointed to sit as a referee in this proceeding.He will take evidence and make findings of facton the following questions regarding the case ofPeople v. Jarvis J. Masters (Marin CountySuperior Court No. 10467; Judge Beverly B.Savitt): 1. Was false evidence regardingpetitioner's role in the charged offenses admittedat the guilt phase of petitioner's trial? If so, whatwas that evidence? 2. Is there newly discovered,credible evidence indicative of petitioner's nothaving been a participant in the chargedoffenses? If so, what is that evidence? 3. What, ifany, promises or threats were made to guiltphase prosecution witness Rufus Willis by DistrictAttorney Investigator Charles Numark or DeputyDistrict Attorneys Edward Berberian or PaulaKamena? Was Willis's trial testimony affected byany such promises or threats, and, if so, how? 4.Were there promises, threats or facts concerningguilt phase prosecution witness Bobby Evans'srelationship with law enforcement agencies ofwhich Deputy District Attorneys Berberian andKamena were, or should have been, aware, butthat were not disclosed to the defense? If so,what are those promises, threats or facts? 5. DidDeputy District Attorneys Berberian and Kamenaknowingly present false testimony by Bobby

Evans? If so, what was that testimony? 6. What,if any, promises or threats were made to BobbyEvans by District Attorney Investigator Numark,Department of Corrections Investigator JamesHahn, or Deputy District Attorneys Berberian andKamena? Was Evans's trial testimony affected byany such promises or threats, and, if so, how? 7.Did penalty phase prosecution witness JohnnyHoze provide false testimony regardingpetitioner's involvement in the murder of inmateDavid Jackson? If so, what was that falsetestimony? It is further ordered that the refereeprepare and submit to this court a report of theproceedings conducted pursuant to thisappointment, of the evidence adduced, and thefindings of fact made. Petitioner's "Application forOrder Compelling Disclosure" filed on November29, 2007, is referred to the referee for disposition.(See In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783, 814.)

05/16/2008 Received: letter from referee, Hon. John Stephen

Graham, dated May 14, 2008.

06/02/2008 Received: letter from attorney Baxter, dated May 30,2008, advising that petitioner believes that JudgeGraham should be allowed to continue as thereferee on a visiting basis after his retirement.

06/26/2008 Letter sent to: referee in response to his May 14, 2008 letter.

09/25/2008 Note: confidential application for funds filed this date

in related automatic appeal, no. S016883.

10/06/2008 Filed: Letter from referee, Hon. John StephenGraham, dated October 3, 2008, requestingreplacement as referee.

10/22/2008 Received: letter from attorney Baxter, dated October 17,

2008, regarding the reassignment to a newreferee. Counsel requests that the court not takeany further action on the reassignment until thecourt reviews motion/letter to be submitted bycounsel by October 28, 2008.

10/29/2008 Motion filed (AA) by petitioner, "Motion for Change of Venue".

10/31/2008 Received: from petitioner, supplemental proof of service.

11/07/2008 Filed: supplemental declaration of Joseph Baxter in

support of motion for a change of venue.

11/12/2008 Opposition filed by respondent, Opposition to Petitioner'sMotion for Change of Venue and Declaration ofCounsel Alice B. Lustre.

11/26/2008 Filed: by petitioner, "Reply to Opposition to

Petitioner's Motion for a Change of Venue" anddeclarations in support of reply to opposition, ofJoseph Baxter, Richard Targow and Greg Jilka,Attorneys at Law.

12/10/2008 Order filed At the request of the court's referee in this

proceeding, The Honorable John Stephen

Graham, Judge of the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Marin, Judge Graham isrelieved of his appointment as referee withthanks for his service. The Honorable VernaAdams, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of Marin, is directed to select aJudge of that court to sit as a referee in thisproceeding and promptly to notify this court of thereferee selected. After appointment by this court,the referee will take evidence and make findingsof fact on the following questions regarding thecase of People v. Jarvis J. Masters (Marin CountySuperior Court No. 10467; Judge Beverly B.Savitt): 1. Was false evidence regardingpetitioner's role in the charged offenses admittedat the guilt phase of petitioner's trial? If so, whatwas that evidence? 2. Is there newly discovered,credible evidence indicative of petitioner's nothaving been a participant in the chargedoffenses? If so, what is that evidence? 3. What, ifany, promises or threats were made to guiltphase prosecution witness Rufus Willis by DistrictAttorney Investigator Charles Numark or DeputyDistrict Attorneys Edward Berberian or PaulaKamena? Was Willis's trial testimony affected byany such promises or threats, and, if so, how? 4.Were there promises, threats or facts concerningguilt phase prosecution witness Bobby Evans'srelationship with law enforcement agencies ofwhich Deputy District Attorneys Berberian andKamena were, or should have been, aware, butthat were not disclosed to the defense? If so,what are those promises, threats or facts? 5. DidDeputy District Attorneys Berberian and Kamenaknowingly present false testimony by BobbyEvans? If so, what was that testimony? 6. What,if any, promises or threats were made to BobbyEvans by District Attorney Investigator Numark,Department of Corrections Investigator JamesHahn, or Deputy District Attorneys Berberian andKamena? Was Evans's trial testimony affected byany such promises or threats, and, if so, how? 7.Did penalty phase prosecution witness JohnnyHoze provide false testimony regardingpetitioner's involvement in the murder of inmateDavid Jackson? If so, what was that falsetestimony? It is further ordered that the refereeprepare and submit to this court a report of theproceedings conducted pursuant to thisappointment, of the evidence adduced, and thefindings of fact made. Petitioner's "Motion for aChange of Venue, " filed on October 29, 2008, isdenied.

12/16/2008 Received: letter from the Hon. Verna Adams, dated

December 15, 2008, regarding selection ofreferee.

12/23/2008 Referee appointed THE COURT: Based on the record in thismatter and good cause appearing: TheHonorable M. Lynn Duryee, Judge of theSuperior Court of California, County of Marin, isappointed to sit as a referee in this proceeding.The referee will take evidence and make findingsof fact on the following questions regarding thecase of People v. Jarvis J. Masters (Marin CountySuperior Court No. 10467; Judge Beverly B.Savitt): 1. Was false evidence regardingpetitioner's role in the charged offenses admittedat the guilt phase of petitioner's trial? If so, whatwas that evidence? 2. Is there newly discovered,credible evidence indicative of petitioner's nothaving been a participant in the chargedoffenses? If so, what is that evidence? 3. What, ifany, promises or threats were made to guiltphase prosecution witness Rufus Willis by DistrictAttorney Investigator Charles Numark or DeputyDistrict Attorneys Edward Berberian or PaulaKamena? Was Willis's trial testimony affected byany such promises or threats, and, if so, how? 4.Were there promises, threats or facts concerningguilt phase prosecution witness Bobby Evans'srelationship with law enforcement agencies ofwhich Deputy District Attorneys Berberian andKamena were, or should have been, aware, butthat were not disclosed to the defense? If so,what are those promises, threats or facts? 5. DidDeputy District Attorneys Berberian and Kamenaknowingly present false testimony by BobbyEvans? If so, what was that testimony? 6. What,if any, promises or threats were made to BobbyEvans by District Attorney Investigator Numark,Department of Corrections Investigator JamesHahn, or Deputy District Attorneys Berberian andKamena? Was Evans's trial testimony affected byany such promises or threats, and, if so, how? 7.Did penalty phase prosecution witness JohnnyHoze provide false testimony regardingpetitioner's involvement in the murder of inmateDavid Jackson? If so, what was that falsetestimony? It is further ordered that the refereeprepare and submit to this court a report of theproceedings conducted pursuant to thisappointment, of the evidence adduced, and thefindings of fact made.

02/19/2009 Received: status report from referee.

05/04/2009 Letter sent to: referee requesting status report.

05/05/2009 Received: status report from referee.


08/14/2009 Received: status report from referee, dated August 13,

2009.

09/11/2009 Received: status report from referee, dated September 4,2009.

01/26/2010 Received: status report from referee, dated January 21,

2010.

02/02/2010 Association ofattorneys filed

Chris P. Andrian for petitioner.

04/22/2010 Note: order filed this date in related automaticappeal, no. S016883, appointing Chris P. Andrianas associate counsel to represent Masters formatters related to the evidentiary hearing in thiscase.

04/28/2010 Received: status report from referee, dated April 23,

2010.

06/25/2010 Received: status report from referee, dated June 23,2010.

08/04/2010 Received: status report from referee, dated July 30, 2010.

11/03/2010 Received: status report from referee, dated November 1,

2010.

11/30/2010 Received: copy of ex parte letter sent to referee.

12/02/2010 Letter sent to: referee re letter received on November 30,2010.

12/17/2010 Received: status report from referee, dated December

15, 2010.

02/18/2011 Received: status report from referee, dated February 14,2011.

04/13/2011 Letter sent to: Judge Duryee regarding evidentiary hearing

record.


09/12/2011 Referee's reportfiled

09/12/2011 Letter sent to: counsel advising that referee's report was filedtoday. The parties are invited to serve and fileexceptions to the referee's report andsimultaneous briefs on the merits on or beforeOctober 12, 2011. Responses, if any, should beserved and filed 30 days thereafter. Please notethat the court's record contains the originaldocuments and exhibits in the case, and not aclerk's transcript that apparently was prepared forcounsel. References and citations in the parties'exceptions and briefs to documents and exhibitsshould identify the documents at issue in themanner they are designated in the originalrecord, not by reference to the pagination of theclerk's transcript provided to counsel.

09/26/2011 Filed: evidentiary hearing record from superior court:

30 vols. of reporter's transcript (1, 489 pp.); 2vols. of sealed reporter's transcript (28 pp.); 8

superior court files (vols. I-VIII); 3 depositiontranscripts; sealed material; and exhibits.



to file petitioner's exceptions to referee's reportand brief on the merits. (1st request)

10/11/2011 Filed: Letter from Attorney Joseph Baxter, datedOctober 10, 2011, proposing an alternate briefingschedule for the Exceptions to the Referee'sReport and Brief on the Merits and Responses.

10/11/2011 Filed: petitioner's request for extension of time to file

exceptions to referee's report and brief on themerits (1st amended request)



to file respondent's exceptions to referee'sreport and brief on the merits. (1st request)

10/12/2011 Filed: Letter from Deputy Attorney General Alice B.Luster, dated October 12, 2011, in response topetitioner's letter seeking an alteration to thisCourt's briefing schedule.


granted Good cause appearing, and based uponcounsel Joseph Baxter's representation that heanticipates filing the exceptions to the referee'sreport and brief on the merits by January 12,2012, counsel's request for an extension of timein which to file that document is granted toDecember 12, 2011. After that date, only onefurther extension totaling about 30 additionaldays is contemplated.


granted Good cause appearing, counsel's request foran extension of time in which to file theexceptions to the referee's report and brief on themerits is granted to December 12, 2011. Afterthat date, no further extension is contemplated.

10/27/2011 Order filed The orders filed on October 24, 2011, are

amended to read as follows: On application of theparties and good cause appearing, it is orderedthat the time to serve and file exceptions to reportof the referee and simultaneous briefs on themerits is extended to and including December 12,2011. After that date, only one further extensiontotaling 30 additional days is contemplated.Responses, if any, must be served and filed nolater than 30 days thereafter.

11/16/2011 Letter sent to: counsel advising that the court has denied the

request to amend the schedule for the filing of theparties' exceptions to the referee's report andsimultaneous brief on the merits, and anyresponses thereto, as presented in counsel forpetitioner's letter of October 11, 2011. Thebriefing schedule established by the court's orderof October 27, 2011 remains in effect until furtherorder of this court.


to file petitioner's exceptions to referee's reportand brief on the merits. (2nd request)


Good cause appearing, and based uponcounsel Joseph Baxter's representation that heanticipates filing petitioner's exceptions toreferee's report and brief on the merits byJanuary 12, 2012, counsel's request for anextension of time in which to file that brief isgranted to January 12, 2012. After that date, nofurther extension is contemplated.



to file respondent's exceptions to referee'sreport and brief on the merits. (2nd request)


Good cause appearing, and based uponDeputy Attorney General Alice B. Lustre'srepresentation that she anticipates filingrespondent's exceptions to referee's report andbrief on the merits by January 12, 2012,counsel's request for an extension of time inwhich to file that brief is granted to January 12,2012. After that date, no further extension iscontemplated.



to file respondent's exceptions to referee'sreport and brief on the merits. (3rd request)


to file petitioner's exceptions to referee's reportand brief on the merits. (3rd request)


On application of the parties and good causeappearing, it is ordered that the time to serve andfile exceptions to the report of referee andsimultaneous briefs on the merits is extended toand including February 14, 2012. After that date,no further extensions are contemplated.Responses, if any, must be served and filed nolater than 30 days thereafter.

02/01/2012 Filed: petitioner's "Notice of settled statement re: off-

the-record discussions between counsel and thecourt on or about January 21, 2011."



to file petitioner's exceptions to referee's reportand brief on the merits. (4th request)


to file respondent's exceptions to referee'sreport and brief on the merits. (4th request)


On application of the parties and good causeappearing, it is ordered that the time to serve andfile exceptions to the report of referee andsimultaneous briefs on the merits is extended toand including March 16, 2012. After that date, nofurther extensions are contemplated. Responses,

if any, must be served and filed no later April 5,2012.

03/13/2012 Filed: petitioner's "Notice of January 27, 2011 file-

stamped document that is part of the record ofwrit of habeas corpus proceeding"

03/13/2012 Filed: petitioner's "Notice of stipulation re: file-

stamping of documents"

03/16/2012 Exceptions/briefingfiled re referee'sreport

Non-Title Respondent: Department of Corrections& Rehabilitation

Attorney: Attorney General - San Francisco Office by respondent. (82 pp. excluding exhibits Athrough C)

03/16/2012 Exceptions/briefing

filed re referee'sreport

Petitioner: Jarvis J. Masters Attorney: Jeanette L. Lebell Attorney: Joseph Baxter

Attorney: Richard I. Targow by petitioner. (229pp. excluding attachments 1 & 2) ***** SEALEDPURSUANT TO ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 28,2012 *****

03/16/2012 Filed: by petitioner, "Proof of Service of Petitioner's

Brief on the Merits and Exceptions to theReferee's Report"



to file respondent's response to petitioner'sexceptions to referee's report. (1st request)


to file petitioner's reply to respondent'sexceptions to referee's report and brief on themerits. (1st request)


granted Good cause appearing, and based uponDeputy Attorney General Alice Lustre'srepresentation that she anticipates filing therespondent's response to petitioner's exceptionsto the referee's report by April 20, 2012,counsel's request for an extension of time inwhich to file that document is granted to April 20,2012. After that date, no further extension iscontemplated.

04/09/2012 Filed: supplemental declaration in support of request

for extension of time to file petitioner's reply torespondent's exceptions to referee's report andbrief on the merits.


granted Good cause appearing, and based uponcounsel Joseph Baxter's representation that heanticipates filing the petitioner's reply torespondent's exceptions to the referee's reportand brief on the merits by April 20, 2012,counsel's request for an extension of time inwhich to file that document is granted to April 20,2012. After that date, no further extension iscontemplated.

04/20/2012 Request for to file respondent's response to petitioner's


exceptions to referee's report. (2nd request)


to file petitioner's reply to respondent'sexceptions to referee's report and brief on themerits. (2nd request)


granted On application of the parties and good causeappearing, it is ordered that the time to serve andfile the parties' responses to the exceptions to thereport of the referee and simultaneous briefs onthe merits is extended to and including April 30,2012. After that date, no further extensions arecontemplated.



to file petitioner's reply to respondent'sexceptions to referee's report and brief on themerits. (3rd request)

04/30/2012 Response brief re

referee's report(case fully briefed)

Non-Title Respondent: Department of Corrections& Rehabilitation

Attorney: Attorney General - San Francisco Office respondent's brief in response to petitioner'sbrief on the merits and exceptions to the referee'sreport (73 pp.) ***** FILING STRICKENPURSUANT TO ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 28,2012 *****

04/30/2012 Filed: by petitioner, List of Errata for Petitioner's

Exceptions to the Referee's Report and Brief onthe Merits filed March 16, 2012


granted On application of the petitioner and goodcause appearing, it is ordered that the time toserve and file the parties' responses to theexceptions to the report of the referee andsimultaneous briefs on the merits is extended toand including May 3, 2012. After that date, nofurther extensions will be granted.

05/03/2012 Response brief re

referee's report(case fully briefed)

Petitioner: Jarvis J. Masters Attorney: Joseph Baxter

Attorney: Richard I. Targow petitioner's reply torepondent's exceptions to the referee's reportand brief on the merits (150 pp. excludingattachment A) ***** SEALED PURSUANT TOORDER FILED NOVEMBER 28, 2012 *****

05/03/2012 Filed: by petitioner, Proof of Service for petitioner's

reply to repondent's exceptions to the referee'sreport and brief on the merits

05/03/2012 Motion filed by petitioner, "Motion to Strike Attachments "A"

and "B" to Respondent's Exceptions to Referee'sReport and Brief on the Merits..."

05/22/2012 Application filed petitioner's application for order authorizing

reference hearing counsel to view referencehearing exhibits, including sealed respondent'sexhibit M, and for related orders.

05/24/2012 Filed: respondent's "Response to Petitioner's

Application for Order Authorizing Viewing ofExhibits" ***** FILING STRICKEN PURSUANTTO ORDER FILED NOVEMBER 28, 2012 *****

05/25/2012 Filed: petitioner's, "proof of service of application for

order authorizing reference hearing to counsel toview reference hearing exhibits, including sealedrespondent's exhibit M, and for related orders".

05/29/2012 Filed: respondent's Amended Declaration of Service.

06/05/2012 Opposition filed Non-Title Respondent: Department of Corrections

& Rehabilitation Attorney: Attorney General - San Francisco Office

respondent's opposition to petitioner's motionto strike attachments.

06/12/2012 Letter sent to: referee re missing 2 vols. of reporter's

transcript from the evidentiary hearing record.

06/14/2012 Filed: petitioner's reply to respondent's opposition tomotion to strike attachments.

07/05/2012 Filed: additional evidentiary hearing record:

"augmentation" reporter's transcript, vol. 1(hearing on May 1, 2009; pp. 1-15) and vol. 2(hearing on April 22, 2010; pp. 16-31)

07/25/2012 Motion denied Petitioner's "Motion to Strike Attachments 'A'

and 'B' to Respondent's Exceptions to Referee'sReport and Brief on the Merits, " filed on May 3,2012, is denied.

07/25/2012 Motion for access

to sealed recordgranted

Petitioner's "Application for Order AuthorizingReference Hearing Counsel to View ReferenceHearing Exhibits, Including Sealed Respondent'sExhibit M, " filed on May 22, 2012, is granted.Counsel for petitioner is permitted to inspect thereference hearing exhibits, includingRespondent's Exhibit M. Counsel is not permittedto make any copy, by any means, of any exhibit.Petitioner also requests permission for hiscounsel and counsel's agents to review theexhibits in petitioner's trial, Marin County SuperiorCourt case number 10467. Because the originaltrial exhibits have not been transmitted to thiscourt (see Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.634(a),8.224), the request is properly made to thesuperior court in the first instance. It appears theparties have disclosed in publicly filed documentsmaterial contained in sealed records, inparticular, Petitioner's Exhibit 54 andRespondent's Exhibit M, in apparent violation ofrule 8.46(g) of the California Rules of Court andthe referee's sealing and protective orders of May1, 2009, January 6, 2011, January 20, 2011, andJanuary 21, 2011. Accordingly, the parties areordered to inform the court why the followingdocuments should not be stricken from therecord: (1) Petitioner's "Brief on the Merits andExceptions to the Referee's Report, " filed on

March 16, 2012; (2) Petitioner's "Reply toRespondent's Exceptions to the Referee's Reportand Brief on the Merits, " filed on May 3, 2012;(3) Respondent's "Brief in Response toPetitioner's Brief on the Merits and Exceptions tothe Referee's Report, " filed on April 30, 2012;and (4) Respondent's "Response to Petitioner'sApplication for Order Authorizing Viewing ofExhibits, " filed on May 24, 2012. The parties aredirected to file, no later than August 9, 2012,either (1) letter briefs explaining why thedisclosures in these documents do not violate theRules of Court and the referee's orders, or (2)motions to withdraw these documents. The Clerkis directed to serve copies of this order on legalcounsel for the California Department ofCorrections and Rehabilitation and the SanFrancisco Police Department, and on the referee,who may also file letter briefs addressing theparties' disclosures no later than August 9, 2012.Any response to a letter brief must be filed nolater than August 20, 2012. The Clerk is directedto seal temporarily, pending further order of thecourt, documents (1) -(4) listed above, with theprovision that the legal representatives of theCalifornia Department of Corrections andRehabilitation are permitted to inspect thoseportions of the documents disclosing informationfrom Petitioner's Exhibit 54, and the legalrepresentatives of the San Francisco PoliceDepartment are permitted to inspect thoseportions of the documents disclosing informationfrom Respondent's Exhibit M.

08/08/2012 Motion filed respondent's motion to withdraw respondent's

brief in response to petitioner's brief on the meritsand exceptions to the referee's report and to filesubstitute pleading. (note: substitute pleadingsubmitted under separate cover)

08/08/2012 Motion filed respondent's motion to withdraw respondent's

response to petitioner's application for orderauthorizing viewing of exhibits and to filesubstitute pleading. (note: substitute pleadingsubmitted under separate cover)



petitioner's application for extension of time torespond to the court's July 25, 2012 orderregarding sealed exhibits.


granted Good cause appearing, petitioner's applicationfor an extension of time to file a letter brief ormotion to withdraw documents is granted toAugust 23, 2012. No further extension of time willbe granted. Any response to a letter brief must befiled no later than September 4, 2012.

08/10/2012 Filed: California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation's Brief Regarding Public Disclosure

of Sealed Documents, filed by attorneys Peter J.Hirsig and William L. McCaslin, counsel forCDCR. (2 pp.) (1st brief)

08/13/2012 Filed: supplemental proof of service of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation'sBrief Regarding Public Disclosure of SealedDocuments.

08/24/2012 Received: petitioner's (1) "application to seal petitioner's

letter brief regarding petitioner's exhibit 54 andrespondent's exhibit M, petitioner's application forleave to file exhibits, and this application, " withthe notation "to be conditionally filed under seal";(2) "application to file exhibits cited in petitioner'sletter brier regarding petitioner's exhibit 54 andrespondent's M, " with the notation "to beconditionally filed under seal"; (3) "letter briefregarding petitioner's exhibit 54 and respondentexhibit M, " with the notation "to be filedconditionally under seal"; and (4) a sealedenvelope (lacking a case caption and casenumber) labeled "exhibits filed with petitioner'sapplication to file exhibits cited in petitioner'sletter brief regarding petitioner's exhibit 54 andrespondent's exhibit M, " with the notation "to beconditionally filed under seal."

08/28/2012 Letter sent to: attorney Joseph Baxter:

On August 24, 2012, we received petitioner's (1)"application to seal petitioner's letter briefregarding petitioner's exhibit 54 and respondent'sexhibit M, petitioner's application for leave to fileexhibits, and this application, " with the notation"to be conditionally filed under seal"; (2)"application to file exhibits cited in petitioner'sletter brier regarding petitioner's exhibit 54 andrespondent's M, " with the notation "to beconditionally filed under seal"; (3) "letter briefregarding petitioner's exhibit 54 and respondentexhibit M, " with the notation "to be filedconditionally under seal"; and (4) a sealedenvelope (lacking a case caption and casenumber) labeled "exhibits filed with petitioner'sapplication to file exhibits cited in petitioner'sletter brief regarding petitioner's exhibit 54 andrespondent's exhibit M, " with the notation "to beconditionally filed under seal." We are returningall of these for non-compliance with rule 8.46 ofthe California Rules of Court. If petitioner wishesto lodge items (1), (2), (3) and (4) conditionallyunder seal, he must serve and file a publicmotion(s) or application(s), accompanied by adeclaration containing facts sufficient to justify thesealing. Each item (the original and each copy,separately) must be placed in separate sealedenvelopes to be lodged conditionally under seal.Each envelope must have a cover sheet that

complies with rule 8.40(c) and labels the contentsas "CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL." Ifnecessary to prevent disclosure, any motion orapplication and supporting documents must befiled as a redacted public version with anunredacted version lodged conditionally underseal. (See also Rule 8.46(g).) The letter brief andapplication(s) should be returned to the court onor before Monday, September 10, 2012.

09/11/2012 Filed: petitioner's letter brief regarding petitioner's

exhibit 54 and respondent's exhibit M. (13 pp.)

09/11/2012 Motion to filedocument underseal filed

petitioner's "application to seal and/or redactpetitioner's letter brief regarding petitioner'sexhibit 54 and respondent's exhibit M, and thisapplication"

09/11/2012 Lodged: *** CONDITIONALLY UNDER SEAL ***

petitioner's (unredacted) letter brief regardingpetitioner's exhibit 54 and respondent's exhibit M(filed under seal pursuant to court's November28, 2012)


(unredacted) "petitioner's application to sealand/or redact petitioner's letter brief regardingpetitioner's exhibit 54 and respondent's exhibit M,and this application" (filed under seal pursuant tocourt's November 28, 2012)

09/11/2012 Motion to file

document underseal filed

petitioner's "Application to File Exhibits Cited inPetitioner's Letter Brief Regarding Petitioner'sExhibit 54 and Respondent's Exhibit M"


"exhibits filed with petitioner's application to fileexhibits cited in petitioner's letter brief regardingpetitioner's exhibit 54 and respondent's exhibit M"

09/17/2012 Filed: petitioner's proof of service of: (1) petitioner's

letter brief regarding petitioner's exhibit 54 andrespondent's exhibit M; (2) petitioner's"application to seal and/or redact petitioner'sletter brief regarding petitioner's exhibit 54 andrespondent's exhibit M, and this application" and(3) petitioner's "application to file exhibits cited inpetitioner's letter brief regarding petitioner'sexhibit 54 and respondent's M" on counsel forCDCR, counsel for the SF Police Department,and on Judge Duryee, referee.

09/17/2012 Filed: respondent's response to petitioner's letter

brief regarding petitioner's exhibit 54 andrespondent's exhibit M. (5 pp. excludingattachment)

09/17/2012 Opposition filed Non-Title Respondent: Department of Corrections

& Rehabilitation Attorney: Attorney General - San Francisco Office

respondent's response in opposition to

petitioner's application to file exhibits cited inpetitioner's letter brief. (2 pp.)

09/25/2012 Order filed Any response by the referee, the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,and the San Francisco Police Department topetitioner's letter brief, filed on September 11,2012, must be served and filed no later thanOctober 10, 2012. The Clerk is directed to servecopies of this order on the referee and the legalrepresentatives of the Department of Correctionsand Rehabilitation and the San Francisco PoliceDepartment.

09/27/2012 Filed: petitioner's redacted "reply to respondent's

September 17, 2012 response" (2 pp. )

09/27/2012 Lodged: *** conditionally under seal *** petitioner'sunredacted "Reply to Respondent's September17, 2012 Response" [to letter brief]. (filed underseal pursuant to court's November 28, 2012)

09/27/2012 Filed: petitioner's (supplemental) proof of service of

redacted reply to respondent's September 17,2012 response.

09/27/2012 Motion to file

document underseal filed

petitioner's redacted "application to seal and/orredact petitioner's reply to respondent'sSeptember 17, 2012 response"


petitioner's unredacted "Application to Sealand/or Redact Petitioner's Reply to Respondent'sSeptember 17, 2012 Response" (filed under sealpursuant to court's November 28, 2012)

09/27/2012 Filed: (supplemental) proof of service of petitioner's

redacted "application to seal and/or redactpetitioner's reply to respondent's September 17,2012 response"

10/10/2012 Filed: California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation's Brief Regarding Public Disclosureof Sealed Documents, filed by attorneys Peter J.Hirsig and William L. McCaslin, counsel forCDCR. (2 pp.) (2nd brief)

11/28/2012 Order filed Respondent's "Motion to Withdraw

Respondent's Response to Petitioner'sApplication for Order Authorizing Viewing ofExhibits and to File Substitute Pleading, " and"Motion to Withdraw Respondent's Brief inResponse to Petitioner's Brief on the Merits andExceptions to the Referee's Report and to FileSubstitute Pleading, " filed on August 8, 2012,are granted. Respondent's "Brief in Response toPetitioner's Brief on the Merits and Exceptions tothe Referee's Report, " filed on April 30, 2012,and "Response to Petitioner's Application forOrder Authorizing Viewing of Exhibits, " filed onMay 24, 2012, are stricken, and the Clerk is

directed to return those documents torespondent. The Clerk is directed to filerespondent's "Brief in Response to Petitioner'sBrief on the Merits and Exceptions to theReferee's Report, " and "Response to Petitioner'sApplication for Order Authorizing Viewing ofExhibits, " received on August 8, 2012.Petitioner's "Application to Seal and/or RedactPetitioner's Letter Brief Regarding Petitioner'sExhibit 54 and Respondent's Exhibit M, and thisApplication, " filed on September 11, 2012, and"Petitioner's Application to Seal and/or RedactPetitioner's Reply to Respondent's September17, 2012 Response, " filed on September 27,2012, are granted. The Clerk is directed to fileunder seal: (1) petitioner's "Application to Sealand/or Redact Petitioner's Letter Brief RegardingPetitioner's Exhibit 54 and Respondent's ExhibitM, and this Application, " lodged in this court onSeptember 11, 2012; (2) petitioner's "Letter BriefRegarding Petitioner's Exhibit 54 andRespondent's Exhibit M, " lodged in this court onSeptember 11, 2012; (3) petitioner's "Applicationto Seal and/or Redact Petitioner's Reply toRespondent's September 17, 2012 Response, "lodged in this court on September 27, 2012; and(4) petitioner's "Reply to Respondent'sSeptember 17, 2012 Response, " lodged in thiscourt on September 27, 2012. Petitioner's"Application to File Exhibits Cited in Petitioner'sLetter Brief Regarding Petitioner's Exhibit 54 andRespondent's Exhibit M, " filed on September 11,2012, is denied. As ordered by the referee duringthe reference proceedings on January 4 and 5,2011, the Clerk is directed to seal Petitioner'sExhibits 1 through 14, contained in the record ofthe reference proceedings. The Clerk is directedto file under seal, permanently or until furtherorder of this court, petitioner's "Brief on the Meritsand Exceptions to the Referee's Report, " filed onMarch 16, 2012, and petitioner's "Reply toRespondent's Exceptions to the Referee's Reportand Brief on the Merits, " filed on May 3, 2012.Petitioner is directed to file, no later thanDecember 13, 2012, revised versions of thesedocuments that do not disclose materialcontained in sealed documents. (Cal. Rules ofCourt, rule 8.46(g).) No other revisions to theoriginally filed documents are permitted. To theextent petitioner can revise particular citations torefer to publicly filed documents rather thansealed documents, such as with Petitioner'sExhibit 54, he should do so.

11/28/2012 Filed: ***** UNDER SEAL ***** "Petitioner's

Application to Seal and/or Redact Petitioner'sLetter Brief Regarding Petitioner's Exhibit 54 and

Respondent's Exhibit M, and this Application, "which was conditionally lodged under seal onSeptember 11, 2012.

11/28/2012 Filed: ***** UNDER SEAL ***** "Petitioner's Letter

Brief Regarding Petitioner's Exhibit 54 andRespondent's Exhibit M, " which wasconditionally lodged under seal on September 11,2012.

11/28/2012 Filed: ***** UNDER SEAL ***** "Petitioner's

Application to Seal and/or Redact Petitioner'sReply to Respondent's September 17, 2012Response, " which was conditionally lodgedunder seal on September 27, 2012.

11/28/2012 Filed: ***** UNDER SEAL ***** petitioner's "Reply to

Respondent's September 17, 2012 Response [toLetter Brief], " which was conditionally lodgedunder seal on September 27, 2012.

11/28/2012 Filed: "Respondent's Brief in Response to

Petitioner's Brief on the Merits and Exceptions tothe Referee's Report, " received on August 8,2012. (21, 976 words; 72 pp.)

11/28/2012 Filed: "Respondent's Response to Petitioner's

Application for Order Authorizing Viewing ofExhibits, " received on August 8, 2012.



by petitioner to comply with court's November28, 2012 order.


Good cause appearing, petitioner's request foran extension of time in which to comply with thecourt's November 28, 2012, order is granted toand including December 20, 2012.



by petitioner to comply with court's November28, 2012 order. (2nd request)


Good cause appearing, petitioner's request foran extension of time in which to comply with thecourt's November 28, 2012, order is granted toand including January 3, 2013.

01/03/2013 Filed: petitioner's REDACTED Exceptions to the

Referee's Report and Brief on the Merits. (229pp. excluding attachment)

01/03/2013 Filed: petitioner's REDACTED Reply to

Respondent's Exceptions to the Referee's Reportand Brief on the Merits. (150 pp.)

02/19/2013 Application filed petitioner's "Application to File Supplemental

Brief in Excess of 2800 Words" (brief submittedunder separate cover)

03/27/2013 Motion denied Petitioner's Application to File Supplemental

Brief in Excess of 2800 Words, filed on February19, 2013, is denied.

05/20/2013 Received: Petitioner's Amended Supplemental Brief;corrections to respondent's reply to petitioner'sexceptions brief

05/29/2013 Application filed to file Petitioner's Amended Supplemental

Brief; corrections to respondent's reply topetitioner's exceptions brief

06/26/2013 Motion denied Petitioner's "Application to File Amended

Supplemental Brief: Corrections to Respondent'sReply to Petitioner's Exceptions Brief, " filed onMay 29, 2013, is denied.

02/28/2014 Filed: Letter with attachment, dated February 27,

2014, from Alice B. Lustre, Deputy AttorneyGeneral, advising the attachment was recentlyprovided to the District Attorney following aninternal review by the FBI

09/02/2014 Application filed by petitioner, "Application for Order Authorizing

Reference Hearing Counsel to View SealedReference Hearing Exhibits, Including SealedRespondent's Exhibit M, and for Related Orders."

09/15/2014 Filed: by petitioner, Supplemental Proof of Service

indicating service of the "Application for OrderAuthorizing Reference Hearing Counsel to ViewSealed Reference Hearing Exhibits, IncludingSealed Respondent's Exhibit M, and for RelatedOrders" on attorney Chris Andrian.

10/01/2014 Motion for access

to sealed recordgranted

Petitioner's "Application for Order AuthorizingReference Hearing Counsel to View SealedReference Hearing Exhibits, Including SealedRespondent's Exhibit M, and For Related Orders," filed September 2, 2014, is granted as follows.Counsel for petitioner is permitted to inspectRespondent's Reference Hearing Exhibit M(Bates Number BEA 00001 through BEA 00413),which is under seal. Counsel is also permitted toinspect the following sealed documents: (1)"Redacted Documents, " a collection ofnonsequential documents starting with BatesNumber BEA 00001 and ending with BEA 00382;(2) "Documents Removed From Production, " acollection of nonsequential documents startingwith Bates Number BEA 00013 and ending withBEA 00413; (3) "Redaction Log, " a 4-pagedocument; and (4) "Documents Removed FromProduction, " a 17-page document. Counsel isnot permitted to make any copy, by any means,of any exhibit or document.

08/05/2015 Received: Letter from Joseph Baxter, Attorney at Law,

dated August 3, 2015, recommendationregarding scheduling for oral argument forappellant/petitioner. (see automatic appeal caseno. S016883)

12/15/2017 Application filed by petitioner, "Application for Leave to File

Supplemental Post-Hearing Brief Regarding the

Revised New Evidence Standards to this HabeasCorpus Proceeding"

01/31/2018 Supplemental

briefing ordered Petitioner's "Application for Leave to FileSupplemental Post-Hearing Brief Regarding theRevised New Evidence Standards to this HabeasCorpus Proceeding, " filed December 15, 2017, isgranted. Respondent is directed to serve and filea supplemental response brief on or beforeMarch 2, 2018; any supplemental reply brief mustbe served and filed on or before 30 daysthereafter.

01/31/2018 Supplemental brief

filedPetitioner: Jarvis J. Masters

Attorney: Richard I. Targow by petitioner,Petitioner's Supplemental Brief Regarding theApplication of the Revised New EvidenceStandards Under Penal Code 1473, Subdivisions(b)(3)(A) and (B) (3, 227 words; 15 pp.)

03/02/2018 Supplemental brief

filedNon-Title Respondent: Department of Corrections& Rehabilitation

Attorney: Attorney General - San Francisco Office by respondent, Respondent's SupplementalBrief Regarding the Application of the RevisedNew Evidence Standards Under Penal Code1473, Subdivisions (b)(3)(A) and (B) (2, 914words; 17 pp.)

03/23/2018 Application for


to file appellant's supplemental reply brief.


Based upon counsel Richard I. Targow'srepresentation that the petitioner's supplementalreply brief is anticipated to be filed by May 1,2018, an extension of time in which to file thatbrief is granted to May 1, 2018. After that date,no further extension is contemplated.

Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.

Careers | Contact Us | Accessibility | Public Access to Records | Terms of Use | Privacy © 2018

Judicial Council of California

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/email.cfm?dist=0&doc_no=S130495

http://www.courts.ca.gov/careers.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

http://www.courts.ca.gov/9149.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en


http://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en



04/08/2005 Request for - tompainetootompainetoo.com/docs/Death Penalty/Habeas/Habeas docket...

Documents

Transcript of 04/08/2005 Request for - tompainetootompainetoo.com/docs/Death Penalty/Habeas/Habeas docket...