Criminal Appeal

Habeas Relief Granted to Dead Petitioner on Brady Claim

California's Fifth Appellate District issued a published opinion granting habeas relief to an inmate convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to LWOP more than 20 years ago. The Court, in a forceful opinion condemning the failure of the justice system, found the Brady violation so egregious, it refused to dismiss the still-pending petition when the petitioner, Mark Collin Sodersten, died on June 25, 2006:

This case calls to account the American system of justice. For that system to have credibility we must respond. As we shall explain, what happened in this case has such an impact upon the integrity and fairness that are the cornerstones of our criminal justice system, that continued public confidence in that system requires us to address the validity of petitioner’s conviction despite the fact we can no longer provide a remedy for petitioner himself. To discharge this writ as moot would be a disservice to the legitimate public expectation that judges will enforce justice. It would be a disservice to justice. Most of all, it would be a disservice to petitioner, who maintained his innocence despite a system that failed him. We will not perpetuate that failure and let silence endorse that result.

The Brady claim stemmed from information showing that "at the time of trial, prosecuting and law enforcement authorities were aware of or actually possessed tape-recorded statements of the two key trial witnesses that contained inconsistent statements, as well as admissions of lying and coercive interrogation of one of the witnesses."

Presiding Justice Ardaiz authored this published 87-page opinion joined by Justice Cornell and Justice Kane. In re Sodersten, no. F047425 (Cal.Ct.App., 5th Dist., Filed Jan. 17, 2007).

No Interlocutory Relief for Former Prison Guard Facing Retrial on Charges Arising from Prison Shooting.
U.S. v. Lewis, no. 03-10181 (9th Cir. May 25, 2004).

Holdings: (1) no interlocutory review of the district court’s denial of his “fair warning” defense. (According to the court, "[t]he fair warning requirement ensures that 'no man shall be held criminally responsible for conduct which he could not reasonably understand to be proscribed.' United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954)." The court took no position on whether the fair warning defense actually applied in this case. (2) Prosecution’s alleged Brady violations did not raise double jeopardy concerns. The court joined other circuits in concluding there is no double jeopardy violation even when the prosecutor intentionally withholds exculpatory information to avoid an acquittal.

Panel: Wallace, McKeown, and Callahan (author).

9th Cir.: Conviction Vacated Because District Court Failed to Conduct In Camera Review of Witnesses' Presentence Reports Upon Defendant's Brady Material Request. In U.S. v. Alvarez, no. 01-10686, the Ninth Circuit vacated appellant Alvarez's conviction, but affirmed appellant Valenzuela's conviction.

As to Alvarez, the Court held that (1) the evidence was sufficient that Alvarez knowingly participated in a conspiracy; (2) the magistrate had a substantial basis for the probable cause finding made in issuing a search warrant; (3) the district court did not err in admitting evidence of hand-held radios, police scanners, and a transceiver device found at the defendant's home; (4) by not renewing it at the close of evidence, Alvarez waived his claim that the district court erred in denying a severance motion, and any error was not prejudicial anyway; and (5) (here's where Alvarez gets relief) "where a district court fails to conduct an in camera review of the probation files of significant witnesses pursuant to a timely defense request for Brady materials, we will vacate the defendant’s conviction and remand the case to the district court with instructions to conduct the review"; (6) there was no error in other discovery rulings; (7) Alvarez’s sentence did not violates Apprendi because there was no jury determination of drug quantity; (8) sufficient evidence supported the district court drug quantity calculation.

As to Valenzuela, the court held that (1) any error in the conspiracy instruction was harmless; (2) "the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the statements describing people’s actions in 1996 did not constitute inadmissible hearsay"; (3) any error in the disqualification of jurors outside the presence of the defendant and without a defense opportunity for rehabilitation was harmless; (4) the district court did not error in denying a defense motion to compel the government to grant use immunity to a witness; (5) there was no abuse of discretion in admitting evidence of drug trafficking during the period of the charged conspiracy.

Phew.