Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

395 Pages·2008·11.15 MB·English

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In re ) CaseNo. Sl11336
1
VICENTE BENAVIDES FIGUEROA
) (Kern County Superior Court
On Habeas Corpus ) Case No. 48266)
CORRECTED AMENDED PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
MICHAEL LAUmNCE (Bar No. 12 18 54)
CWSTINA BOWE (Bar No. 195464)
MONICA OTHON (Bar No. 241 543)
HABEAS CORPUS RESOURCE CENTER
303 Second Street, Suite 400 South
San Francisco, California 94 107
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (4 15) 348-3873
Attorneys for Petitioner
Vicente Benavides Figueroa
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CORRECTED AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
................................................................................
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES i
..........................................
I. . PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND 2
....................................................................................
11. STATEMENT OF FACTS 8
....................................................................
A. Evidence Presented at Trial 10
........................................................
B. Evidence Presented in this Petition 14
............................................................................
111. BASIS FOR JURISDICTION 18
..............................................
IV. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND INCORPORATION 19
......................................
V. SCOPE OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENTIARY BASES 19
..................................................................... ................
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 20
;
CLAIM 1: THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE AND MISLEADING TESTIMONY
.................
THAT PETITIONER CAUSED CONSUELO VERDUGO'S INJURIES 20
CLAIM 2: THE STATE PREJUDICIALLY COERCED THE TESTIMONY OF
........................................................
ESTELLA MEDINA AND CRISTINA MEDINA 47
CLAIM 3: THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE
...........................................
FACTS THAT OCCURRED ON NOVEMBER 17, 1991 69
CLAIM 4: THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE AND MISLEADING TESTIMONY
THAT PETITIONER CAUSED CONSUELO VERDUGO'S INJURIES THAT
...............................................
SHE SUSTAINED PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 17, 1991 79
CLAIM 5: THE STATE PRESENTED FALSE AND MISLEADING TESTIMONY
THAT PETITIONER WAS A CHILD MOLESTER, WHEN IT HAD
OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION DISPROVING ITS OWN
.............................................
ALLEGATIONS WHICH IT FAILED TO DISCLOSE 99
CLAIM 6: THE STATE PRESENTED IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE
CONCERNING ESTELLA MEDINA IN AN ATTEMPT TO GENERATE JUROR
.....................................................................................
OUTRAGE AT PETITIONER 114
CLAIM 7: THE STATE WITHHELD MATERIAL EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE
THAT WAS RELEVANT TO THE IMPEACHMENT OF PROSECUTION
WITNESSES AND THAT INDICATED THE PROSECUTION HAD
...............................................................
MANUFACTURED FALSE TESTIMONY 124
CLAIM 8: THE STATE PREJUDICIALLY FAILED TO DISCLOSE BENEFITS
OFFERED TO WITNESSES IN EXCHANGE FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE WITH
.....................................................................................................................
THE CASE 145
CLAIM 9: THE STATE'S RELIANCE ON PETITIONER'S ILLEGALLY
OBTAINED AND INVOLUNTARY STATEMENTS AND ITS PREJUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT IN INTERROGATING PETITIONER VIOLATED
.......................................................
PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS 149
CLAIM 10: THE STATE UNFAIRLY TARGETED PETITIONER AS THE SOLE
SUSPECT AND IGNORED EVIDENCE THAT IMPLICATED OTHER
.....................................................................................................................
SUSPECTS 156
CLAIM 11: THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN PREJUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
............................................................................................................
DURING TRIAL 165
CLAIM 12: PETITIONER WAS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY DEPRIVED OF
THE RIGHT TO COMPETENT INTERPRETER SERVICES DURING HIS
.......................................................................................................
CAPITAL TRIAL 176
CLAIM 13: PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND TO A FAIR AND RELIABLE
DETERMINATION OF GUILT AND PENALTY BY TRIAL COUNSEL'S
.................................................
PREJUDICIALLY DEFICIENT PERFORMANCE 190
CLAIM 14: PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
..................................................................
CONFLICT-FREE REPRESENTATION 273
CLAIM 15: SEVERAL INSTANCES OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND
............
PREJUDICIAL JUROR MISCONDUCT OCCURRED DURING TRIAL 279
CLAIM 16: THE COURT'S PRO-PROSECUTION BIAS INFECTED THE
TRIAL AND SWAYED THE JURORS TO DISCREDIT THE DEFENSE AND
......................
MATERIALLY PREJUDICED THE OUTCOME OF THE TRIAL 284
CLAIM 17: THE STATE PRESENTED IMPROPER VICTIM IMPACT
....................................................................................................................
EVIDENCE 289
CLAIM 18: THE TRIAL COURT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY and
PREJUDICIALLY ORDERED PETITIONER TO BE SHACKLED
.....................................................................................
THROUGHOUT THE TRIAL 294
CLAIM 19: PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED
BY THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE PROPERLY TO INSTRUCT THE JURY
OR RECTIFY JUROR CONFUSION REGARDING THE SENTENCE OF LIFE
.........................................................
WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE 297
CLAIM 20: PETITlONER IS INELIGIBLE FOR A DEATH SENTENCE AND
HIS CONVICTION CANNOT STAND BECAUSE OF HIS MENTAL
............................................................................................................
RETARDATION 305
CLAIM 21: PETITIONER'S DEATH SENTENCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
BECAUSE IT WAS SELECTED AND IMPOSED IN A DISCRIMINATORY,
ARBITRARY, AND CAPRICIOUS FASHION AND WAS BASED ON
...........................
IMPERMISSIBLE RACE AND GENDER CONSIDERATIONS 316
CLAIM 22: THE STATE'S DEATH PENALTY STATUTE FAILS TO NARROW
THE CLASS OF OFFENDERS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEATH PENALTY AND
RESULTS IN IMPOSITION OF DEATH IN A CAPRICIOUS AND ARBITRARY
........................................................................................................................
MANNER 323
CLAIM 23: PETITIONER'S CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY RIGHTS
WERE VIOLATED BY THE PROCESS USED TO SELECT AND IMPANEL
.....................................................................................................................
THE JURY 349
CLAIM 24: PETITIONER'S CONVICTION AND DEATH SENTENCE ARE
UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY WERE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF THE
PROVISIONS OF THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS
AND THE CONSULAR CONVENTION BETWEEN THE UNITED MEXICAN
...........................................
STATES AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 355
CLAIM 25: PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO A JURY
DETERMINATION OF FACTS NECESSARY TO SENTENCE HIM TO
...........................................................................................................................
DEATH 367
................................................................................................
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 381
............................................................................................................
VERIFICATION 383
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) 530 U.S. 466 ................................................p assim
Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304 ...............................................................3. 15
Boyde v. California (1 990) 494 U.S. 370 ...........................................................3. 74
Breard v. Greene (1 998) 528 U.S. 371 ................................................................3 62
Cage v. Louisiana (1 990) 498 U.S. 39 .................................................................3 78
Castenada v. Partida (1 977) 430 U.S. 482 ..........................................3 49, 352, 353
Duren v . Missouri (1979) 439 U.S. 357 ..............................................................3. 49
Furman v. Georgia (1 974) 408 U.S. 23 8 ............................................................3. 27
Gregg v. Georgia (1 976) 428 U.S. 153 ..............................................................3. 47
Hicks v . Oklahoma (1980) 447 U.S. 343 ............................................................3. 54
Jones v. United States (1 999) 526 U.S. 227 .......................................................3. 69
McCleskey v. Kemp (1 987) 48 1 U.S. 279 ............................................................3 54
Payne v. Tennessee (1991) 501 U.S. 808 .............................................................2 90
Peters v. Kiff(1972) 407 U.S. 493 .......................................................................3 54
Profjtt v. Florida (1 976) 428 U.S. 242 ...............................................................3 47
Ring v. Arizona (2002) 122 S . Ct . 2428 ........................................................ passim
Sullivan v. Louisiana (1993) 508 U.S. 275 .......................................................... 378
Walton v. Arizona (19 90) 497 U.S. 639 .............................................................. 371
In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358 ...................................................................... 374
Woodson v. North Carolina (1976) 428 U.S. 280 ............................................... 354
STATE CASES
Conservatorship of Roulet (1 979) 23 Cal . 3d 2 19 ............................................... 375
People v. Green (1 980) 27 Cal.3d 1 .................................................................... 327
People v. Adcox (1988) 47 Cal . 3d 207 ............................................................... 326
People v. Alexander (1 985) 163 Cal . App . 3d 11 8 9 ............................................ 350
People v. Anderson (1987) 43 Cal . 3d 1104 ............................................... 328, 332
People v. Bacigalupo (19 93) 6 Cal . 4th 457 ................................................ 33 1, 376
People v. Bell (1989) 49 Cal . 3d 502 ...................................................................3 49
People v. Birden (1986) 179 Cal . App . 3d 1020. ................................................. 335
People v. Burnick (1975) 14 Cal . 3d 306 ............................................................. 375
People v. Ceja (1 993) 4 Cal . 4th 11 34 ................................................................ 334
People v. Conley (1966) 64 Cal . 2d 3 10 ..............................................................3 30
People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal . 3d 1158 ...........................................................3 35
People v. Dillon (1983) 34 Cal . 3d441 ............................................................... 335
People v . Edwards (1991) 54 Cal . 3d 787 ...........................................................2 89
People v. Fields (1983) 35 Cal . 3d 329 ............................................................... 353
People v. Fierro (1 991) 1 Cal . 4th 173 ................................................................ 290
People v. Hayes (19 90) 52 Cal . 3d 577 ............................................................... 332
People v. Morales (1989) 48 Cal . 3d 527 ............................................................ 334
People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal . 3d 1 .................................................................. 335
People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal . 4th 1133 .................................................. 349, 353
People v. Sanders (1 990) 5 1 Cal . 3d 47 1. ............................................................ 350
People v. Stress (1988) 205 Cal . App . 3d 1259 ................. ................................. 330
;
People v. Wolff (1 964) 6 1 Cal . 2d 795 .................................................................3 30
People v. Pitts (1990) 223 Cal . App . 3d 606 ..................................................6. 67
People v . Stoll (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1 136 .....................................................6 67, 243
United States ex re1. Madej v. Schomig (N.D. I11 . Sept. 24, 2002) 2002
WL 31 133277 ...........................................................................................3. 6 36 1
'United States ex re1. Madej v . Schomig (N.D. I11 . Oct . 22, 2002) 2002
WL 31386480 ...........................................................................................3. 61, 362
Valdez v . State (Okla . Crim . App . 2002) 46 P.3d 703 .................................3 61, 363
STATUTES
1981 Cal . Stat. 404. $5 2. 7 .................................................................................3. 29
1982 Cal . Stat. 950. 5 1 ......................................................................................3..2 9
Ariz . Rev . Stat . Ann . 5 13-703(c) (West 1989) .................................................3..4 5
Conn . Gen . Stat . Ann . 53a-46a(c) (West 1985) ...............................................3. 45
Cal . Code Civ . Proc . 55 191, 197. 198.203.204. 209. 21 8.219.222. 228 ........ 354
Cal . Const . Art . I., Sec. 14 .................................................................................1. 77
Cal . Penal Code 5 187. ..................................................................................p assim
Cal . Penal Code fj 188. .........................................................................................3 30
Cal . Penal Code fj 189. ................................................................................. 330 333
Cal . Penal Code 5 190.2. ............................................................................... passim
Cal . Penal Code 5 190.3(a) ............................................................................ passim
Cal . Penal Code tj 1 1 18.1 ..................................................................................... 3,5
Ga . Stat . Ann . 5 27-2537(c) ................................................................................. 347
Mont . Code Ann . 46-1 8.303(7), (9) (1 995) ...................................................... 332
Stats . 1977. ch . 3 16 ..............................................................................................3 27
Stats. 1993. c . 611. tj 4. 4.5. 6 .............................................................................. 329
Stats. 1995. c . 477. 5 1 .........................................................................................3 31
Stats. 1998. c . 629. 5 2 .........................................................................................3 31
Stats. 1999. c . 694. 91 .......................................................................................... 329
U.S. Const . Art . VI, 92 ......................................................................................... 356
United Mexican States and the United States of America of August 12.
1942. 57 Stat . 800 ................................................................................................ 355
Wash . Rev . Code Ann . 10.95.060(4) (West 1990) .............................................. 345
MISCELLANEOUS
Bowers & Steiner. Death by Default: An Empirical Demonstration of
False and Forced Choices in Capital Sentencing (1 999) 77 Tex . L . Rev .
605. 697 .....................................................................................................3.. 0 3 02
CALJIC No . 8.84.1 .............................................................................................3. 41
Consular Convention between the United Mexican States and the United
States of America of August 12. 1942. 57 Stat . 800 ............................................ 355
"Developments in the Law. Race and Criminal Process " (19 88) 10 1 Harv .
L . Rev . 1472. 1525-26 ....................................................................................... 317
Eisenberg & Wells. Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital
Cases (1993) 79 Cornell L . Rev . 1 ...................................................................... 302
Eisenberg et a1 . The Deadly Paradox of Capital Jurors (200 1) 74 So.Ca1.
L.Rev. 371 ............................................................................................................ 301
Garvey et a1 . Correcting Deadly Confusion: Responding to Jury Inquiries
in Capital Cases (2000) 85 Cornell L . Rev . 627 ......................................... 301, 303
LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States). 200 1 ICJ 104 (Judgment) ........ passim
Luginbuhl & Howe. Discretion in Capital Sentencing Instructions:
Guided or Misguided? (1 995) 70 Ind . L.J. 1 16 1 ................................................. 302
Schatz & Rivkind. "The California Death Penalty Scheme: Requiem for
FurmanV(1997)7 2 N.Y.U. L . Rev . 1283 ...........................................................3. 25
Optional Protocol Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes.
Apr . 24. 1963. art . 1. 21 U.S.T. 325. ...................................................................3. 60
Weiner et a1 . Comprehensibility of Approved Jury Instructions in Capital
Murder Cases (1995) 80 J . of Applied Psychology 455 .....................................3. 03
'Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Apr . 24. 1963. 21 U.S.T. 77.
596 U.N.T.S. .....................................................................................................3..5 5