Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Deondre Arthur Staten, Petitioner v. Ronald Davis, Warden

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In re Case No.

DEONDRE ARTHUR STATEN, CAPITAL CASE

Related Direct Appeal Case

No. S025122

(Los Angeles County Superior

Court Case No. KA006698)

On Habeas Corpus

Mw SS ~S SS SS WN

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Third Petition — Original Petition Case No. § 107302]

TO: THE HONORABLE RONALD M. GEORGE, CHIEF JUSTICE OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND TO THE HON ORABLE

ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT:

Petitioner, Deondre Arthur Staten (“Petitioner”), through his counsel,

respectfully petitions this Court for a writ of habeas corpus and by this verified

petition sets forth the following facts and causes for the issuance of the writ:

-|-

207

I

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. Petitioner is currently unlawfully confined and restrained of his liberty at

San Quentin State Prison by Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary, California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and by S.W. Ornoski, Warden. |

2. The name and location of the court which entered the judgment of

conviction and sentence under attack is the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

State of California, Pomona, California, Criminal Case Number SESS.

3. The date of the judgment of conviction J anuary 16, 1992,

4. The sentence is that petitioner be put to death.

5. Petitioner was charged in a two count information filed April 9, 1991,

Count one charged petitioner with the murder of Arthur Staten (petitioner’s

father), in violation of California Penal Code, Section 187(a). Count one further

charged that petitioner personally used a firearm during the commission of the

murder, in violation of California Penal Code, Sections 1203.06(a)(1) and

12022.5. Count two charged petitioner with the murder of Faye Staten

(petitioner’s mother), in violation of California Penal Code, Section 187(a). Count

two further charged that petitioner personally used a deadly and dangerous

weapon, to wit, a knife, during the commission of the murder, in violation of

Be

208

California Penal Code, Sections 12022(b). Both counts charged that the murders

of Arthur and Faye Staten were carried out for financial gain and that the offense

involved multiple murder victims, both special circumstances under California

Penal Code, Sections 190.2(a)(1) and 190.2(a)(3).

6. Petitioner was tried by jury and found guilty on both counts. The jury

found both murders to be in the first degree, found that petitioner personally used

a firearm as alleged in count one and personally used a knife as alleged in count

two. The jury also found the special circumstance allegations of financial gain and

multiple murder victims to be true in both counts. Following a penalty phase, on

December 6, 1991 the same jury fixed the punishment for both counts as death.

7. Petitioner testified during the guilt phase of the trial and denied guilt.

Petitioner did not testify during the penalty phase of the trial.

8. Petitioner appealed his conviction and death sentences.

9. The facts of petitioner’s appeal are as follows:

(A) This Court unanimously affirmed petitioner’s convictions and

sentence on November 9, 2000 in People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434 (2000).

On January 24, 2001, petitioner’s petition for rehearing was denied and the

remittitur was issued to the Los Angeles Superior Court.

(B) On May 24, 2001, petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in

-3-

209

the Supreme Court of the United States seeking review of certain federal

constitutional issues adjudicated adversely to petitioner by this Court. On October

1, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an order denying the

petition.

10. On October 24, 2001, an order was entered by the United States District

Court for the Central District of California staying execution of the sentence of

death until final disposition of a federal habeas corpus petition to be filed on

behalf of petitioner. On November 5, 2001, Jerry L. Newton, Esq. was appointed

by the Honorable Audrey B. Collins, United States District Judge, Central District

of California, to represent petitioner in this proceeding. On November 16, 2001,

this Court appointed Norman D. James, Esq. as second counsel for petitioner.

The federal habeas matter is presently assigned to the Honorable George H. King,

United States District Judge.

11. On May 20, 2002, petitioner filed with this Court his first petition for

writ of habeas corpus, /n re Deondre Arthur Staten, Case No. S107302. The

petition was denied on September 10, 2003.

12. On December 19, 2003, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas

corpus in the United States District Court in Deondre Arthur Staten v. Jeanne

Woodford, Warden of California State Prison At San Quentin, Case No. CV 01-

-4-

210

9178-GHK.

13. On January 8, 2004, a second habeas petition, S121789, was filed in

this Court due to the failure of the ee appeal and first habeas petition to present

to this Court for consideration certain federal constitutional claims. The federal

proceeding was stayed pending this Court’s disposition of the second petition,

which was denied on July 13, 2005.

14. On July 25, 2005, petitioner filed in the federal proceeding an amended

petition containing claims newly exhausted as a result of this Court’s denial of his

second state habeas petition. The amended petition also included a new claim and

new allegations to an existing claim based upon recently obtained information and

evidence concerning a contract between the so-called Pomona Contract Lawyer’s

Association and Los Angeles County [the “PCLA” contract]. This agreement,

effective only in the East District of the Los Angeles County Superior Court

located in Pomona, California, provided for the appointment of conflicts counsel

from a panel of nine si gnatory lawyers in all cases, including death penalty Cases,

for a flat fee of $991.67 per case. Petitioner alleged, as he does herein, that

appointment of counsel under this contract violated his Sixth Amendment Right to

Counsel, and his Rights to Equal Protection and Due Process under the Fifth and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

5.

211

15. Petitioner’s allegations and claim pertaining to the PLCA contract were

challenged by the State on exhaustion grounds, and on January 19, 2006

petitioner’s PCLA claim, claim 11, was found to be unexhausted by the

Honorable George H. King, United States District Judge. However, Judge King

concluded that claim 1, pertaining to denial of second counsel, had not been

fundamentally altered and rendered unexhausted by the inclusion of new PCLA

allegations in support of that claim. The denial of second counsel claim is,

nonetheless, re-alleged in this third state petition (as Claim One) with the new

PCLA allegations so that this Court may have an opportunity to give consideration

to their potential impact on the claim.'. The PCLA facts, including what amounts

to a contractual prohibition against the appointment of two attorneys to represent a

defendant in any case, even a capital case notwithstanding this Court’s decision in

Keenan v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal.3d 424, serve to shed light on what

petitioner alleges to have been improper and constitutionally impermissible

reasons for not only the trial court’s denial of second counsel, but trial counsel’s

strange and ineffectual effort in seeking such an appointment in the first instance.

16. Petitioner hereby incorporates herein and requests that the Court take

' The new allegations of Claim One are contained in paragraphs 70 and 72

through 77 (pp. 50-55) of this petition.

-6-

212

judicial notice of the certified record on appeal and all pleadings and exhibits on

file in this Court in connection with petitioner’s direct appeal and first state habeas

petition.

II

PETITIONER’S CLAIMS ARE NOT PROCEDURALLY BARRED

17. Petitioner contends that Claim One, alleging constitutional error in the

denial of appointment to second counsel, is not barred by the Waltreus rule,

notwithstanding that this issue was raised and denied in petitioner’s automatic

appeal. People v. Staten (2000) 24 Cal.4th 434, 447. The Waltreus bar does not

apply where petitioner’s claim depends on facts that were not, and could not have

been in the appellate record. In re Harris (1993) 5 Cal.4th 813, 828 fn.7, 834 fn.8.

Claim One as alleged herein is now supported by facts that are outside the

appellate record and could not have been made a part of the appellate record on

automatic appeal, viz the appointment of petitioner’s defense attorney under the

terms of the PCLA contract. The existence of the PCLA contract, and the fact that

petitioner’s trial defense attorney was appointed pursuant to the contract, appears

nowhere in the trial record, was unknown to petitioner, and could not have been a

part of the record on appeal. Thus, Claim One, as supported by outside the record

facts, is necessarily left to be raised in habeas, not on direct appeal. Accordingly,

-7-

213

it is not barred by the Waltreus rule.

18. Moreover, Claim One comes within the exceptions to the Waltreus rule

in that the error alleged is a violation of petitioner’s fundamental constitutional

rights to due process of law and right to counsel, and is therefore cognizable in a

post-appeal habeas corpus even when previously rejected on direct appeal.

In re Masching (1953) 41 Cal.2d 530. The constitutional error raised in the

present Claim One “is both clear and fundamental,” and, as is alleged in the claim,

constitutes a structural defect that strikes at the heart of the trial process. As such,

it is within the exceptions to the Waltreus tule. In re Harris, supra at 834.

19. Nor is Claim One with its new PCLA allegations, or Claim Two, which

is founded on the PCLA contract, subject to bar as successive or untimely under Jn

re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770, and Jn re Clark ( 1993) 5 Cal.4th 750. As the

attached declarations of federal counsel, Norman D. James (Exhibit 1) and Jerry L.

Newton (Exhibit 2) demonstrate, the facts upon which the PCLA allegations and

claim are based have only recently been discovered, and have been brought to this

Court without substantial delay and with good cause for any delay that has

occurred. Petitioner himself was completely unaware of the PCLA contract, and,

indeed, neither he nor his appellate attorney had reason to be aware of any

214

irregularity with regard to the appointment of trial counsel2 When vague

information was received concerning the existence of some sort of an agreement

under which conflicts counsel were appointed in the Pomona Superior Court, trial

defense counsel advised that his appointment had_not been made under such a

contract. No reason existed to doubt the truth or accuracy of that representation or

to expend further money and effort investigating the matter. That was particularly

so because, at that time the mere fact that counsel may have been appointed under

such a contract did not provide a “triggering fact” such as to require a follow-up

investigation (beyond inquiring of trial counsel as was done) into the possibility

that a constitutional claim cognizable in habeas corpus existed. Not until the late

summer and fall of 2005 did additional information and documents fortuitously

come into the hands of counsel so as to permit further investigation to establish a

factual and legal basis for the existence of the PCLA allegations as they pertain to

this petitioner.

20. Even should this petition be found to be delayed and successive, this

Court should consider the claims herein because a fundamental miscarriage of

justice has occurred in these proceedings. In Re Clark, supra at 760-61. This

’ As earlier noted, the record contains no reference to the PCLA contract

before, during, or following Mr. Tyre’s appointment to represent petitioner.

9.

215

miscarriage of justice has resulted from the fact that (1) the petitioner is actually

innocent of the crime for which he was convicted, and (2) petitioner’s trial was so

fundamentally unfair that absent the error committed by both the trial court and

petitioner’s trial counsel, no reasonable jury would have convicted petitioner. The

constitutional error raised in Claim Two “is both clear and fundamental,” and, as

is alleged in the claim, constitutes a structural defect that strikes at the heart of the

trial process. In re Harris, supra at 834.

We

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Overview Of The Evidence

21. Petitioner Deondre Arthur Staten was tried, convicted and sentenced to

death for the murder of his parents Faye and Ray Staten on October 12, 1990. The

case was entirely circumstantial — no scientific evidence, no confession and no real

motive. As the prosecutor conceded in his opening statement, he would not be

able to prove that Deondre was the actual murderer, only that Deondre was

somehow “involved” in the double homicide: “... there is no direct evidence;

that [sic] is an entirely circumstantial case .. . Mr. Staten was involved in these

murders. And I use the word involved because I do not necessarily expect to

prove to you that Mr. Staten, that is, the defendant, killed these people himself or

-10-

216

by himself...” (6 RT 810).

22. In October 1990, Deondre was a 24 year old African American who

lived at home with his mother and father, Faye and Ray Staten. Deondre was a

high school graduate who worked part time and was in a musical group called

“The First Amendment.” His parents owned and operated a hair salon and beauty

supply business in La Puente. Family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers

all described the relationship between Deondre and his mother and father as warm

and loving, albeit the stronger relationship was with his mother since his father

was the stricter of the two. Around midnight on October 12, 1990, Deondre’s

parents returned home from a two week vacation trip. Deondre testified that he

met his parents upon their return, helped them unload their suitcases and then left

the family residence to drive to a fast food restaurant for something to eat. Upon

his return some fifteen to twenty minutes later, he entered the family residence and

discovered that his father had been shot in the back of his head in the master

bedroom and his mother had been stabbed eighteen times in a hallway leading to

the dining room/kitchen. Spray painted on a mirror in the family living room

were the letters and word “ESD Kills”, a graffiti message from a violent Hispanic

* “RT” stands for the reporter’s transcript of proceedings, preceded by

volume number and followed by page number.

-l1-

217

street gang known as the East Side Dukes which operated in the same

neighborhood where the Statens lived. Several witnesses testified during the trial

that Deondre had been chased, shot at and harassed by this gang and that the gang

hated African Americans and had painted graffiti messages such as “ESD Kills

Niggers” around the neighborhood. Despite the apparent linkage between this

gang and the murder of Faye and Ray Staten, the police focused their

investigation entirely on Deondre, primarily because Deondre was a beneficiary

of some $300,000 in life insurance proceeds on policies owned by his parents and

Deondre had a less than perfect relationship with his father. The problem with this

picture, however, is that Deondre loved both of his parents, never submitted a

claim for any of the insurance proceeds other than to pay for his parents’ funeral ©

expenses, had no motive to kill his parents, did not write the graffiti message left

after the murders and was not home at the time these violent crimes took place.

I, The Staten Family

23. In October 1990, the Staten family was a middle-class African

American family living in their own home located at 446 South Faxina Avenue in

La Puente. Petitioner’s father, Ray Staten, was 44 years old and his mother,

Faye , was 43 years old. Ray and Faye Staten had two children, petitioner

Deondre, age 24, who lived with his mother and father at the Faxina Avenue

-12-

218

location, and his younger brother Lavelle, age 21, who was mentally retarded, a

ward of the state and who resided at a state run home for the developmentally

disabled in Covina (9 RT 1541). Deondre graduated from Nogales High School,

where he established a good relationship with the vice-principal and was a

member of the school’s football team (16 RT 2681-82).

24. Ray and Faye Staten both worked in a hair salon and beauty supply

store they owned in La Puente named Najamah’s. Deondre worked part time at

Najamah’s, part time as a driver and mechanic and was a member of a musical

group called The First Amendment. Ray and Faye Staten owned their home and

business, as well as a black pickup truck used primarily by Ray and a Cadillac

used primarily by Faye. Ray and F aye also owned four life insurance policies.

Faye owned two $100,000 term life policies, Ray owned one $100,000 term life

policy and Ray also owned one $3,000 IRA annuity policy (8 RT 1387-89). F aye

and Ray were primary beneficiaries on each other’s life insurance policies, with

both Deondre and Lavelle named as contingent beneficiaries. In August 1990,

Lavelle was dropped from the policies as a contingent beneficiary since Lavelle

was a ward of the state and Ray didn’t want the state to receive any of the

insurance proceeds (8 RT 1407).

25. Deondre’s relationship with his mother F aye was described by four

-13-

219

neighbors, six close friends, four family members and one co-worker as being

close, loving and warm.* Deondre’s relationship with his father was described as

loving by the Staten side of the family, described by friends and acquaintances as

good but not as close as the relationship Deondre had with his mother, and was

described by Faye’s side of the family (the McKays) as strained. ° A few

prosecution witnesses painted a somewhat different picture of the relationship.

Judith McKay, Faye’s sister, described the relationship between Deondre and his

father as strained because his father thought Deondre was lazy (9 RT 168 8).

Elizabeth Watts, Faye’s best friend, recalled hearing Deondre say prior to his

parents vacation that his mother “would never hit him again” and that he would

“take his father out”. Ms. Watts also stated that she did not believe these

* The neighbors were Michael Hartman (6 RT 857-58), Craig Hartman (6

RT 889), Bertha Sanchez (6 RT 964) and Raphael Sanchez (7 RT 1051). The

close friends were Matthew Nottingham (7 RT 1118), Elizabeth Watts (11 RT

1977), Karen Johnson (13 RT 2216), Minnie Cole (16 RT 2655-57), Brian Ellis

(17 RT 2789) and Quincy Murphy (17 RT 2810). The family members were

Faye’s nephew Duane McKay (9 RT 1607), Ray’s mother Korea Staten (16 RT

2715), Ray’s cousin Lendoria Horn (17 RT 2777) and Ray’s brother Lenard Staten

(17 RT 2785). The co-worker was Audrey January (8 RT 1372).

° The Staten family members were Ray’s mother Korea Staten (16 RT 2715)

and Ray’s brother Lenard Staten (17 RT 2784-85). The friends and acquaintances

were Audrey January (8 RT 1372), Elizabeth Watts (11 RT 1977), Brian Ellis (17

RT 2789) and Quincy Murphy (17 RT 2809-10). The McKay family member was

Judith McKay (9 RT 1667).

-14.

220

comments were serious, that Deondre was upset when he made them and that

Deondre was very close to his mother (11 RT 1977; 12 RT 2004-05). Kimberly

Wilder, Faye’s niece, claimed that Deondre failed to show remorse after the

murders and did not cry at the funeral (9 RT 1614-15). Kimberly also admitted

that Deondre was not an emotional person (9 RT 1636). Karen Johnson, the

mother of one of Deondre’s friends, stated that Deondre had a close relationship

with his mother, but claimed that she once heard Deondre say he would shoot his

father (13 RT 2214-16). Ms. Johnson claimed that she reported this threat to the

case agent, Detective George Roberts. However, Detective Roberts testified that

he had no recollection of any such threat being conveyed to him by Ms. Johnson

(14 RT 2435). John Nichols and Bishop Higgins, friends of Deondre, both stated

that in March 1990, while they were at Nichols’ home playing basketball,

Deondre told them he would make $200,000 if his parents were killed and

requested their assistance (7 RT 1168; 15 RT 2542). Nichols stated that he didn’t

take the comment seriously since Deondre was laughing and joking when he made

the statement (7 RT 1201, 1251). During Deondre’s testimony, he described the

relationship with both his mother and father as close, but added that his

relationship with his mother was stronger because his father tended to be strict

with him (17 RT 2825-27).

-15-

221

2. The East Side Dukes

26. David Watkins, a Sergeant with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department

and a purported gang expert, testified that the East Side Dukes were a violent

street gang made up exclusively of Hispanics (10 RT 1722). The East Side Dukes

were known to kill people (10 RT 1731). The territory claimed by the East Side |

Dukes included the area where the Staten residence was located (10 RT 1734),

Sergeant Watkins testified that in 1990, the East Side Dukes kept a safe house on

Faxina Avenue near the Staten residence (10 RT 1824).° He testified that he had

also observed graffiti written by the East Side Dukes proclaiming “East Side

Dukes Kills Niggers” (10 RT 1758).

27. Michael Hartman lived next door to the Staten residence at 449 South

Faxina Avenue, La Puente. He testified that the East Side Dukes claimed as their

territory the area immediately behind his house (6 RT 844). His son, Craig

Hartman, testified that he could hear gunshots being fired all the time in the area

near his home (6 RT 883). Raphael Sanchez, a postal employee residing two

doors from the Staten residence at 456 South Faxina, La Puente, testified that he

heard guns being fired every night about a block away from his home (7 RT 1058).

* Detective George Roberts, the case agent, identified the safe house as

being at 555 South Faxina, which would be approximately one block from the

Staten residence (10 RT 1824).

-16-

222

His son, Eugene Sanchez, testified that the East Side Dukes were a local gang

and that when he would go to bed at night he would hear gunshots usually

between 10:00 and 12:00 p.m. (7 RT 1071).

28. Several neighbors and friends of Deondre had experienced difficulties

with the East Side Dukes. Brian Ellis testified that on one occasion he was

standing at the intersection of Faxina Avenue and Northam Avenue with Deondre

and a few other friends when a group of East Side Dukes drove by in a car and

threw a beer bottle in the direction of Deondre (17 RT 2790-91). In the year

preceding the murder of the Statens, Quincy Murphy, one of Deondre’s friends,

was standing outside the residence of John Nichols with Nichols and Deondre.

Nichols lived about a block from Deondre. Murphy testified that a group of the

East Side Dukes drove slowly by Murphy, Nichols and Deondre and words were

exchanged. One of the gang members told Deondre “I know where you stay. I’m

going to get you, fat boy” (17 RT 2818). Brandon Booker, an acquaintance of

Deondre who lived in the neighborhood, described the East Side Dukes as

prejudiced against blacks. He described an incident involving East Side Dukes

shooting at blacks near a fast food restaurant, shooting at the homes of blacks

living in East Side Dukes territory, and described Faxina Avenue as East Side

Dukes territory (9 RT 1336, 1344, 1347). Booker also described a conversation

-17-

223

with Deondre in which Deondre told Booker that he had been chased and shot at

by East Side Dukes gang members (9 RT 1336).

29. John Nichols, one of Deondre’s friends who lived about a block from

the Staten residence, testified that he was standing outside his home with Deondre

and Quincy Murphy in early 1990 when a car full of East Side Dukes gang

members pulled up and threatened Deondre (7 RT 1138-39). Nichols testified that

a few months prior to that, the East Side Dukes came by his residence and drew

guns on both he and Deondre (7 RT 1 140-41). Deondre told Nichols that he was

being threatened by the East Side Dukes and Nichols had observed graffiti in the

neighborhood stating “East Side Dukes Kills Niggers” (7 RT 1141, 1213).

Nichols, who was black, testified that whenever he would encounter East Side

Dukes gang members he would receive “hard stares” (7 RT 1233).

30. Dr. Armando T. Morales, a 30 year member of the UCLA faculty,.a

professor of psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences at the neuropsychiatric institute

and hospital at the UCLA school of medicine, a former Los Angeles County

probation officer, an author of studies on gang behavior and activities and a

consultant to the California Youth Authority, in a declaration submitted in support

_ of the petitioner’s state habeas petition described the East Side Dukes as an

“extremely violent” Hispanic street gang active in the La Puente area where the

-18-

224

Statens lived in 1990. According to Dr. Morales, the East Side Dukes were well

known for hating blacks and would on occasion attack and kill blacks and shoot

up their houses.

31. Evidence developed in the state habeas investigation revealed

aatigonism between Ray, Deondre and the East Side Dukes resulting from drug

activities engaged in by both Ray and Deondre inside the “turf” claimed by the

East Side Dukes. Ray Staten was involved with illegal drugs. He was admitted to

Saint Joseph Hospital in January of 1989 for treatment of alcoholism.and cocaine

addiction. The cocaine addiction involved “freebasing rock as much as money

allows” (Declarations and Exhibits In Support Of Petition For Writ Of Habeas

Corpus [hereinafter “Declarations”], Vol. II, p. 246). According to Keith Taylor,

an acquaintance of Deondre, the East Side Dukes sold drugs in the neighborhood

around Nogales High School. Taylor alleged that both Deondre and his father

were involved in selling drugs in territory claimed by the East Side Dukes. This

led to a confrontation between Deondre and East Side Duke gang members

(Declarations, Vol. I, pp. 17-18). Brian Ellis, another friend of Deondre, also

asserted that Ray Staten was involved in selling cocaine (Declarations, Vol. I, p.

19). Quincy Murphy, another acquaintance of Deondre, stated that there was

animosity between the East Side Dukes and both Ray and Deondre Staten because

-19-

225

both Ray and Deondre were selling crack cocaine in territory claimed by the East

Side Dukes (Declarations, Vol. Lp. 21).

32. Ray and Faye were “very security conscious” (9 RT 1657). There were

wrought iron security bars on all doors and windows at their home on Faxina

Avenue which were usually kept locked (6 RT 839, 869). In September of 1988,

Faye purchased a .38 caliber revolver (8 RT 1354-55). This gun was kept in a

desk in the office at the beauty supply business (9 RT 15 02-03). Faye also carried

a .22 caliber derringer in her purse (9 RT 1659). In August 1990, Deondre called

his cousin Kimberly, told her that he was in trouble with a Mexican gang, and

asked her if she could help him obtain a gun for his protection (9 RT 1610, 1640).

33. Deondre testified that he had lived at the Faxina Avenue residence for

thirteen years. His troubles with the East Side Dukes began while he was

attending Nogales High School. Over the years since high school, Deondre had

been threatened on numerous occasions by gang members. After being threatened

by East Side Duke gang members in front of Nichols residence in the presence of

Nichols and Murphy, Deondre was shot at by these gang members after leaving

Nichols ‘ house (17 RT 2836). While his parents were on vacation, Deondre

received telephone threats from gang members (17 RT 283 7).

-20-

226

3. Events Occurring During The Vacation

34. In late September 1990, Ray and Faye departed on a two week vacation.

They drove Ray’s pickup truck to Faye’s parents home in South Central Los

Angeles and then left from there for a two week vacation to Egypt. Deondre was

left at home with Faye’s Cadillac for transportation and charged by his parents

with looking after the residence and the hair salon and beauty supply business,

35. The Cadillac developed engine trouble and became inoperable a few

days after Deondre’s parents left on vacation (17 RT 2832). As a result, Deondre

had to rely on his friends Quincy Murphy, Brian Ellis and John Nichols for rides

(7 RT 1142; 17 RT 2832). While Deondre’s parents were on vacation, Nichols

spent a considerable amount of time at the Staten residence (7 RT 1128). Deondre

worked at the hair salon, cleaning up the premises and collecting rent checks from

hair stylists working there (8 RT 1369; 17 RT 2792, 2833). On one occasion

Nichols picked Deondre up at the hair salon and Deondre had in his possession

Faye’s .38 caliber revolver (17 RT 2840). According to Nichols, Deondre claimed

that he purchased the gun (7 RT 1 147). That same day, Deondre gave-Nichols his

mother’s .22 caliber derringer for his own protection from the East Side Dukes

since Nichols was staying with Deondre (7 RT 1156; 17 RT 2838). During this

time frame, both Nichols and Deondre were receiving threats from East Side

~2 |.

227

Dukes gang members (7 RT 1137-40; 8 RT 1271; 17 RT 2836).

36. A few days prior to Deondre’s parents returning from vacation, Nichols

was spending the evening at the Staten residence with Deondre. Vernon Burden, a

friend of Nichols, also stopped by that evening. While Burden was in the kitchen

making phone calls and Nichols was sleeping on a sofa in the living room,

Deondre emerged from his bedroom carrying his mother’s .38 caliber revolver.

Deondre told Nichols and Burden that he thought he heard something in the back

yard. He also told them “I wish they [East Side Dukes] would leave my family

alone and stop calling here and harassing me” (8 RT 1271). Deondre went into the

back yard but did not find anyone there. He then returned to the kitchen area and

asked Burden if Burden could obtain a silencer or make a silencer for the .38

caliber revolver. Burden told Deondre to tape a potato to the gun with duct tape

(8 RT 1279-80). The next day, Deondre went outside to the back yard and

discovered the words “ESD” painted in white on the patio. He called Nichols and

Booker to come over to see the graffiti. Nichols observed the graffiti and heard

Deondre state that the East Side Dukes were “going to get theirs” (7 RT 1 159).

When Booker went to the residence later that day, he also observed the graffiti.

Deondre had the .38 caliber revolver with him at the time. Deondre asked Booker

to see if he could find out who had painted the graffiti in the back yard (8 RT

9.

228

1334; 17 RT 2839).

37. On October 11, 1990, the night before Ray and Faye returned home,

Deondre threw a party at the Staten residence attended by some fifteen to twenty

people (8 RT 1237; 17 RT 2928). A fight broke out involving two men and two

women, one of whom was the ex-boyfriend of a girl Nichols had invited to the

party (7 RT 1151). Nichols borrowed the .38 caliber revolver from Deondre and

escorted his date home. Nichols then returned to the Staten residence and gave the

.38 caliber revolver back to Deondre (7 RT 1154). When Deondre first took the

gun from his mother’s office, it was fully loaded (i.e. 5 hollow point bullets) (17

RT 2890). When Nichols returned the gun to Deondre on October 11, 1990,

Nichols heard the gun being fired into the air once (7 RT 1154), but did not see

who fired the gun (7 RT 1204-05). The following day, October 12, 1990, Deondre

discovered the gun was missing. Matthew Nottingham, a friend of both Nichols

and Deondre, dropped by the Staten residence between 3:00 and 5:00 p.m. the

afternoon of October 12, 1990 and visited with Deondre. Nottingham observed at

that time that the house was “nice and clean — it was organized”. Nottingham did

not think the condition of the house would upset either Ray or Faye when they

returned later that evening (7 RT 1120). During the course of this visit, Deondre

stated that if he ever had to go to prison, he hoped it would be a federal prison and

33.

229

not a state prison since state prisons had inmates convicted of mass murders and

serial killings (7 RT 1117). Another friend, Winston Burt, dropped by that same

afternoon with John Nichols. Burt saw what he thought might be the handle of a

gun in Deondre’s pants pocket (7 RT 1079-80). Nichols was not sure whether

Deondre had the .38 in his possession on October 12, 1990 (7 RT 1205-06).

Nichols and Burt left the Staten residence around 6:30 p.m.. At the time Nichols

thought the house appeared “clean and neat” and its condition would not upset

either Ray or Faye upon their return home later that evening (7 RT 1215-16).

4. The Statens Return Home

38. Ray and Faye Staten returned from their vacation on Thursday, October

11, 1990 at approximately 11:30 p.m. (9 RT 1643). Instead of going to their own

residence in La Puente, they spent the night at the McKay residence, Faye’s

parents’ home, located at 325 West 73 Street, Los Angeles. The next morning

Kimberly Wilder, Deondre’s cousin who lived in a duplex behind the McKay

residence, called Deondre at home to tell him she thought Ray and Faye would be

returning home that morning (9 RT 1634). Deondre had previously asked Wilder

to call him to let him know when to expect his parents so that he would have an

opportunity to clean up the house before they got home (9 RT 1612). After

hearing from Wilder, Deondre spent most of the day cleaning up the house,

24.

230

mowing the lawn and trimming the hedges (17 RT 2846). Brian Ellis went by the

house around 11:00 a.m. on October 12, 1990 and observed Deondre cleaning the

house (17 RT 2793). Matthew Nottingham dropped by at 3:00 p.m. that same day

and observed the house “nice and clean” (7 RT 1120). John Nichols and Winston

Burt dropped by sometime thereafter to visit with Deondre. When they left at 6:30

p.m., the house was “clean and neat” (7 RT 1215-16).

39. Ray and Faye Staten did not return to La Puente that morning, but

rather stayed in Los Angeles to make a court appearance (9 RT 1634).

Afterwards, they returned to F aye’s parents for a family gathering at 7:00 p.m. to

view vacation videos (9 RT 1509). Deondre called the McKay residence around

6:30 p.m. and spoke with Faye’s sister, Judith McKay. McKay invited Deondre to

join them at the family gathering (9 RT 1645) but Deondre told McKay that Faye’s

Cadillac was not running and hence he could not drive from La Puente to Los

Angeles (9 RT 1672).

40. The family gathering to view the vacation videos took place the evening

of October 12, 1990 at the McKay residence. After looking at the vacation videos,

the gathering broke up. Bobbye Williams, Faye’s sister, testified that Ray and

Faye left the McKay residence sometime between 11:20 and 11:25 p.m. to drive

home in Ray’s pickup (9 RT 151 1). Faye’s sister Judith McKay was more

5.

231

specific. She testified that Ms. Williams actually left before Ray and Faye,

sometime around 11:23 p.m. (9 RT 1673), and that Ray and Faye left two minutes

later at 11:25 p.m. (9 RT 1673).

41. October 12,1990 wasa Friday evening. The distance from the McKay

residence, 325 West 73™ Street, Los Angeles to the Staten residence, 446 South

Faxina, La Puente, is 29.39 miles.” As noted, post, Ray had been drinking at the

family gathering. A toxicology test performed during his autopsy three days later

revealed a blood alcohol content of 0.126% (11 RT 1926). Assuming Ray left the

McKay residence at 11:25 p.m., as claimed by Judith McKay, and arrived home at

the Faxina location at 11:40 p.m., as claimed by the prosecutor, Ray would have

had to average approximately 120 miles per hour for the entirety of the 29.39 mile

drive home — surface streets included. Assuming Ray left the McKay residence at

11:20 p.m., as claimed by Bobbye Williams,°® and arrived home at 11:40 p.m., as

claimed by the prosecutor, Ray would have had to average approximately 90 miles

” Reference to the “Mapquest” web site shows the distance between these

two residences and that the most direct route between them utilizes the Harbor

Freeway (I-110), the San Bernardino Freeway (I-10), the Pomona Freeway (I-60)

and the surface streets off the Pomona F reeway to the Staten residence.

* Of course, Ms. Williams was only guessing as to the time the Statens left

the McKay residence since Williams left before the Statens that evening (9 RT

1673).

-26-

232

per hour for the entirety of the 29.39 mile drive home — surface streets included.°

Duane McKay, Faye’s brother, was also present at the family gathering. He

testified that he left the party shortly before 11:00 p.m. and drove to his home near

the Los Angeles Sports Arena (3939 South Figueroa, Los Angeles) (9 RT 1606-

07). The distance from the McKay residence to the Sports Arena is 2.97 miles.”

Duane McKay testified that it took him between ten and twelve minutes to drive

home that evening. This would indicate that McKay drove home at approximately

18 miles per hour, suggesting heavy traffic on the Harbor Freeway that Friday

evening.

5. The Murders Of Ray And Faye Staten — Two Distinct Time-Lines

42. The prosecution theory of the murders of Ray and Faye Staten was

based entirely on one assumption: The Statens arrived home from the family

gathering at approximately 11:40 p.m. and were murdered by Deondre Staten

° Detective George Roberts, the case agent, testified that the distance

between the McKay residence and the Staten residence was 28.4 miles and that he

drove same on a weekday at around 11:00 p.m. in 24 minutes, or averaging a little

more than 50 miles per hour (14 RT 2406-07, 2427). This time line would still

place the Statens returning home after their neighbors claimed they heard the shots

which supposedly killed Ray Staten, discussed post.

Reference to the “Mapquest” web site shows the distance between the

McKay residence and the Los Angeles Sports Arena (3939 South Figueroa) and

the most direct route between them, utilizing the Harbor Freeway (I-110).

97.

233

sometime during a commercial break on the television news program “Nightline”

which occurred from 11:47:20 p.m. to 11:47:50 p.m. on October 12, 1990. As

noted ante, this assumes Ray Staten, while legally drunk, drove home on a Friday

‘night from South Central Los Angeles to La Puente at speeds somewhere between

90 to 120 miles per hour.

43. Bertha Sanchez, her husband Raphael, her son Eugene, a baby daughter

and her niece Regina Ontiveros lived two doors away from the Staten residence at

456 South Faxina Avenue, La Puente (6 RT 907). On October 12, 1990, Raphael

got home from his job at the post office about 11:30 p.m. (6 RT 907; 7 RT 1019).

Bertha fixed Raphael dinner and then went into the garage to do some laundry.

The garage door was open, facing onto Faxina Avenue. Bertha Sanchez testified

that at 11:40 p.m. she saw Ray’s pickup drive by and pull into the driveway in

front of the Staten residence (6 RT 916). This would have been approximately

fifteen minutes after the Statens left their homecoming party at the McKay

residence in South Central Los Angeles. Sanchez then finished doing laundry and

went into her home, where she and her husband retired to the bedroom to watch

the television program “Nightline”, which was on from 11:30 p.m. to midnight.

Sanchez testified that she heard three gunshots — one “muffled” (i.e., the so-called

“silencer”, discussed post) and two “clear” (6 RT 919, 940). The shots were fired

-28-

234

during a commercial break on the Nightline television program (6 RT 924)."!

Bertha Sanchez testified that the shots were fired “about ten to twelve” (6 RT

923). Her husband Raphael testified he heard the shots being fired “between

11:45 or ten minutes to 12:00" (7 RT 1026). Raphael went to a bedroom window

which looked out on Faxina Avenue, from which he was able to see a portion of

the Staten residence. Raphael did not see anyone, hear anyone nor observe any

cars drive by (7 RT 1027-29).

44. Both Bertha and Raphael reviewed a videotape of the Nightline

television program and identified the commercial break during which they heard

the gunshots (6 RT 993-24: 7 RT 1032-35). Raphael Sanchez identified the

commercial as a “car” commercial (7 RT 1035). The logs for the commercials

which aired that night on Nightline reflect that the only car commercial which ran

that evening (Acura/Integra) took place between 11:47:20 and 11:47:50 p.m.

(trial exhibit 46; 9 RT 1490).'2 Hence, the time line drawn by the prosecutor

" As noted, ante, it was not uncommon to hear gunshots being fired in this

neighborhood which abutted the “turf? of the East Side Dukes.

* Both Bertha and Raphael Sanchez reviewed the videotape of the

Nightline program with a Los Angeles Sheriffs detective (6 RT 93 1-34; 7 RT

1034-35), in all probability the case agent Detective George Roberts. However,

the record never specifically identifies the commercial or the timing of the

commercial, other than the testimony of Raphael Sanchez that it was a “car”

commercial.

-29-

235

established that Ray and Faye Staten left the McKay residence at 11:25 p.m.,

drove some 29 plus miles home to La Puente in approximately fifteen minutes

(thus averaging approximately 120 miles per hour while Ray was legally

intoxicated), arrived home at 11:40 p.m. and were murdered by their son Deondre

sometime between 11:47:20 and 11:47:50 p.m..

45. The second time line was provided by Deondre and corroborated by

various witnesses and telephone records. Deondre spent October 12, 1990,

cleaning the house and yard in preparation for his parents return later that evening

(7 RT 1120, 1215; 9 RT 1613-15; 17 RT 2793, 2846). At 6:18 p.m. that same day,

he telephoned the McKay residence in South Central Los Angeles (213-750-1535,

trial exhibit 52) from his home in La Puente and spoke with Faye’s sister Judith

McKay. McKay asked Deondre if he was going to attend the family gathering and

Deondre told McKay he could not since the only car available to him, F aye’s

Cadillac, was inoperable (9 RT 1672). Deondre also called the McKay residence

at 7:46 p.m. and 9:06 p.m. during the family gathering (trial exhibit 52),

46. According to John Nichols, Deondre’s friend, Deondre paged him (818-

417-2365) between fifteen and twenty times on October 12, 1990 (7 RT 1217; 8

-30-

236

[OCR skipped on page(s) 31-34]

[Read from a scan; the first 30 pages.]