# Appendix — Calderon v. Sandoval

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_1864%3A2

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 2001
- **Citation:** 534 U.S. 943

## Text

od ”””:C“

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Gourt, U.
FILED

no. 00177 4 way 222001

ARTHUR CALDERON, Warden of the California State Prison at
San Quentin, Petitioner,

ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, Respondent.

Vv.

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
VOLUME I OF I

BILL LOCKYER
Attorney General of the State of California
DAVID P. DRULINER
Chief Assistant Attorney General
MARC C. TURCHIN
Acting Senior Assistant Attorney General
SUSAN L. FRIERSON
Deputy Attorney General
KEITH H. BORJON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
*JEFFREY B. KAHAN
Deputy Attorney General
*Counsel of Record
300 South Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 897-2285
Fax: (213) 897-2263

Counsel for Petitioner

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS |

Description

Verdict forms and minute orders recording guilty
verdicts in case of Sandoval v. Calderon, Los
Angeles Superior Court case number A760386

Verdict forms and minute orders recording mixed
verdicts of life without the possibility of parole
and death in case of Sandoval v. Calderon, Los
Angeles Superior Court case number A760386

Trial court’s sentencing order and commitment to
death in case of Sandoval v. Calderon, Los
Angeles Superior Court case number A760386

California Supreme Court opinion in case of case
of Sandoval v. Calderon, case number S004765,
published at 4 Cal. 4" 155, 14 Cal. Rptr. 2d 342,
841 P.2d 862 (1992)

United States Supreme Court opinion in case of
Victor v. Nebraska, case numbers 92-8894, 92-
9049, published at 511 U.S. 1 (1994)

Request by Prisoner for Appointment of Counsel
in California Death Sentence Case and for Stay of
Execution for Death Sentence and supporting
documentation filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California in the
case of Sandoval v. Calderon (case no. CV-94-
8206-R)

Notice of Filing Death Penalty Habeas Corpus
Petition and Order Staying Execution issued by
United States District Court for the Central
District of California in the case of Sandoval v.
Calderon (case no. CV-94-8206-R)

Page

17

24

32

105

151

163

li

Cover sheet and table of contents from Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus filed in United States
District Court for the Central District of California
in the case of Sandoval v. Calderon (case no. CV-
94-8206-R)

Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed
in United States District Court for the Central
District of California in the case of Sandoval v.
Calderon (case no. CV-94-8206-R)

Unpublished orders of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California in the
case of Sandoval v. Calderon (case no. CV-94-
8206-R) denying relief

Opinion of the United States District Court for the
Ninth Circuit in the case of Sandoval v. Calderon,
case numbers 99-99010 and 99-99013

Amended Opinion of the United States District
Court for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Sandoval
v. Calderon, case numbers 99-99010 and 99-
99013

Unpublished Order of the United States District
Court for the Ninth Circuit in the case of Sandoval
v. Calderon, case numbers 99-99010 and 99-
99013, staying issuance of its mandate pending
application for writ of certiorari

Unpublished Orders of the California Supreme
Court denying habeas relief to Alfred Arthur
Sandoval in case numbers S026386 and S057548

Excerpted argument from brief of Respondent-
Cross-Appellant/Appellee in case of Sandoval v.
Calderon (United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit case numbers 99-99010 and 99-
99013

169

177

349

373

404

442

443

445

APPENDIX A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
| CASE NUMBER
The People of the | A760386
State of California | DEPARTMENT NUMBER
| 116
PLAINTIFF(S) |
|
|
SANDOVAL, |
ALFRED ARTHUR | VERDICT (Guilty)
|
DEFENDANT(S) |

|

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant

ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime of
MURDER, in violation of Section 187, Penal Code, a felony, as
charged in Count 1 of the information and further find it to be

MURDER of the first degree.
first/second

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said defendant,

ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally used a firearm,
to wit. a handgun. within the meaning of PENAL DE

SECTION 12022.5 to be TRUE.
True/Not True

FILED

FEB 12 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN,
COUNTY CLERK

/S/
BY S. LIEBLICH DEPUTY

This 11th day of February 1987. /S/
Foreman

76V210 (Rev. 11-81) 6-85

VERDICT (Guilty)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
| CASE NUMBER
The People of the | A760386
State of California | DEPARTMENT NUMBER
pee
PLAINTIFF(S) |
VS. |
SANDOVAL, ALFRED | VERDICT (Guilty)
ARTHUR |
|
DEFENDANT(S) _|

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime of
MURDER. in violation of Section 187, Penal Code, a felony, as
charged in Count 2 of the information and further find it to be

MURDER of the first degree.
first/second

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said defendant,
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally used a firearm,
to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of PENAL CODE

SECTION 12022.5 to be TRUE.
True/Not [rue

FILED
FEB 12 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN, COUNTY CLERK
/S/
BY S. LIEBLICH DEPUTY

This 11" day of February 1987. /S/

Foreman
VERDICT (Guilty)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CASE NUMBER
The People of the A760386
State of California DEPARTMENT
NUMBER
116
PLAINTIFF(S)

SANDOVAL, ALFRED
ARTHUR

VERDICT (Guilty)

|

|

|

|

|

|

VS. |
|

|

|

|

DEFENDANT(S) |
|

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime of
ATTEMPTED MURDER, in violation of Section 664/187,
Penal Code, a felony, as charged in count 5 of the
information.

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said
defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally

used a firearm, to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of
Penal Code Section 12022.5 to be True.
True/Not True

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said
defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, with the
specific intent to inflict such injury, did personally inflict
great bodily injury on Manuel Torres, within the meaning of

Penal Code Section 12022.7 to be TRUE.

FILED

FEB 12 1987

FRANK S. ZOLIN, COUNTY CLERK

/S/

BY S. LIEBLICH DEPUTY

This 11th day of FEBRUARY 1987. /S/

Foreman

VERDICT (Guilty)

76V210 (Rev. 11-81) 6-85

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
| CASE NUMBER
The People of the | A760386
State of California | DEPARTMENT
| NUMBER
| 116
PLAINTIFF(S) |
VS. |
|
SANDOVAL, ALFRED | XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
ARTHUR |
| SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE
DEFENDANT(S) | FINDING
|

We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find the XXXXX

XX XX special circumstance alleged inthe information, to wit,
that the defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, was

convicted in this trial of multiple murder _ within the meaning of
Penal Code Section 190.2(a)(3) to be TRUE.

True/Not True

FILED

FEB. 12 1987

FRANK S. ZOLIN, COUNTY CLERK
/S/

BY S. LIEBLICH DEPUTY

This 12th day of February 1987. /S/

Foreman
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE FINDING

76V210 (Rev. 11-81) 6-85

Ay CITT ee = — ——

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPT. 116
Date: FEBRUARY 12, 1987 || S LIEBLICH
|| Deputy Clerk
HONORABLE: | GHALL Reporter

RICHARD P. KALUSTIAN JUDGE
J RAMSEY Deputy Sheriff

A760386 (Parties and counsel checked if present)

PEOPLE OF THE Counsel for People:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:
VS. D. MILTON

01 SANDOVAL ALFRED Counsel for Defendant:

ARTHUR M KOPPLE/S APPLEBAUM

18704CTS 664/187 01CT

NATURE OF JURY TRIAL REM 1-17-85

PROCEEDINGS

Trial resumes from February 11, 1987 with all jurors present as
heretofore.

Jury deliberations resume at 7:50 a.m.

At 8:40 a.m. the jury returns into the courtroom in the presence
of defense counsel Kopple (all other counsel and the defendant
were not present) with a written request to view exhibits D, E,
and F. The Court answered the request by stating that the
requested exhibits were not admitted in evidence.

At 8:43 a.m. jury deliberations continue.
At 1:36 p.m. the jury returns into the courtroom in the presence

of all counsel and the defendant with the following verdicts as
to Counts 1, 2 and 5 and the special circumstance finding:

“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE: We, the Jury in
the above-entitled action, find the Defendant
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty ofthe crime
of MURDER, in violation of Section 187, Penal
Code, a felony, as charged in Count 1 of the
information and further find it to be MURDER of the
first degree.

And further find the allegation that in the commission
and attempted commission of the above offense the
said defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL,
personally used a firearm, to wit, a handgun, within
the meaning of PENAL CODE SECTION 12022.5 to
be True.

This 11th day February, 1987, Juli B. Juras, Foreman

“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE: We, the jury in
the above-entitled action, find the Defendant
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime
of MURDER, in violation of Section 187, Penal
Code, a felony, as charged in Count 2 of the
information and further find it to be MURDER OF
the first degree.

And further find the allegation that in the commission
and attempted commission of the above offense the
said Defendant,

PAGE 1 OF 3 REM

MINUTES ENTERED
1-12-87
COUNTY CLERK

MINUTE ORDER

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPT. 116
Date: FEBRUARY 12, 1987 || S LIEBLICH
|| Deputy Clerk
HONORABLE: || GHALL Reporter
RICHARD P. KALUSTIAN
JUDGE

J RAMSEY Deputy Sheriff

A760386 (Parties and counsel checked if present)

PEOPLE OF THE Counsel for People:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:
VS. D. MILTON

01 SANDOVAL ALFRED Counsel for Defendant:

ARTHUR M KOPPLE/S APPLEBAUM

187 04CTS 664/187 01CT

NATURE OF JURY CONTINUED REM 1-17-85
PROCEEDINGS TRIAL FROM PAGE 1

ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally used a
firearm, to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of PENAL
CODE SECTION 12022.5 to be true.

This 11th day of February, 1987, Juli Juras, Foreman

“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE: We, the Jury in the
above-entitled action, find the Defendant ALFRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime of
ATTEMPTED MURDER, in violation of Section 664/187,
Penal Code, a felony, as charged in count 5 of the
information.

10

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said
defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally
used a firearm, to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of
Penal Code Section 12022.5 to be true.

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said
defendant ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, with the
specific intent to inflict such injury, did personally inflict
great bodily injury on Manuel Torres, within the meaning
of Penal Code Section 12022.7 to be true.

This 11th day of February 1987, Juli B. Juras, Foreman.

“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE: We, the Jury in the
above-entitled action, find the special circumstance alleged
in the information, to wit, that the defendant, ALFRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, was convicted in this trial of
multiple murder within the meaning of Penal Code
Section 190.2 (a) (3) to be true.

This 12th day of February, 1987, Juli Juras,
Foreman”

The verdict is read; re-reading as recorded is waived. The jury
is polled as to each verdict and the special circumstance finding,
respectively. All twelve jurors answer in the affirmative as to
each verdict and the special circumstance finding, respectively.

PAGE 2 OF 3 REM MINUTES ENTERED

2-12-87
COUNTY CLERK

MINUTE ORDER

oO

11

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPT. 116

Date: FEBRUARY 12, 1987 || S LIEBLICH

|| Deputy Clerk
HONORABLE: || GHALL Reporter
RICHARD P.KALUSTIAN JUDGE
J RAMSEY Deputy Sheriff

A760386 (Parties and counsel checked if present)

PEOPLE OF THE Counsel for People:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:
VS. D. MILTON

01 SANDOVAL ALFRED Counsel for Defendant:

ARTHUR M KOPPLE/S APPLEBAUM

187 O4CTS 664/187 01CT

NATURE OF JURY TRIAL REM 1-17-85
PROCEEDINGS

All verdict forms submitted to the jury as to counts 1, 2 and 5
and the special circumstance finding are filed.

At 2:47 p.m. the jury is admonished and trial is continued ‘or
further deliberations on the remaining counts to February 17,
1987 at 7:45 a.m. in this department. The defendant is ordered
to return.
MINUTES ENTERED
PAGE 3 OF 3 REM 2-17-87
COUNTY CLERK

MINUTE ORDER

12

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FILED
FEB 23 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN
COUNTY CLERK
BY: /S/
DEPUTY

CASE NUMBER
A760386
DEPARTMENT
NUMBER

116

The People of the
State of California

VS.

SANDOVAL, ALFRED
ARTHUR

|
|
|
|
|
PLAINTIFF(S) |
|
|
| | VERDICT (Guilty)
|
|
DEFENDANT(S) |
|

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime of

MURDER, in violation of Section 187, Penal Code, a felony, as

charged in Count 3 of the information and further find it to be
MURDER of the First degree.

first/second

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said
defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally

used a firearm, to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of
PENAL CODE SECTION 12022.5 to be TRUE.

True/Not True

This 23rd day of February 1987 /S/
VERDICT (Guilty) Foreman

Bd

13

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FILED
FEB 23 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN
COUNTY CLERK
BY: /S/
DEPUTY
| CASE NUMBER
The People of the | A760386
State of California | DEPARTMENT
| NUMBER
| 116
PLAINTIFF(S) |
VS. |
|
SANDOVAL, ALFRED | | VERDICT (Guilty)
ARTHUR |
|
DEFENDANT(S) |

|
We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant

ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime of
MURDER, in violation of Section 187, Penal Code, a felony, as

charged in Count 4 of the information and further find it to be
MURDER of the First degree.

first/second

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said
defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally

used a firearm, to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of
PENAL CODE SECTION 12022.5 to be TRUE.
True/Not True

This 23rd day of February 1987 /S/
VERDICT (Guilty) Foreman

14

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPT. 116

Date: FEBRUARY 12, 1987 || S LEFF Deputy Clerk
I
HONORABLE: || GHALL Reporter
RICHARD P. KALUSTIAN ||
JUDGE |
J RAMSEY Deputy Sheriff ||

A760386 (Parties and counsel checked if present)

PEOPLE OF THE Counsel for People:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:
VS. D. MILTON

01 SANDOVAL ALFRED Counsel for Defendant:

ARTHUR M KOPPLE/S APPLEBAUM

18704CTS 664/187 01CT

NATURE OF JURY TRIAL REM 1-17-85

PROCEEDINGS

At 7:55 am, deliberations resume from 2/20/87 with all jurors
present as heretofore.

The jury takes their morning break from 9:35 am to 10:00 am
From 11:30 am to 1:00 pm, the jury takes their lunch break.

At 1:13 pm, the jury returns into the court with the following
verdicts:

“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE
We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime of
MURDER, in violation of Section 187 Penal Code, a felony, as
charged in Count 3 of the information and further find it to be

aw ne Min Vee

Oe ee eee ee

15

MURDER of the first degree.

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said defendant,
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally used a firearm,
to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of PENAL CODE
SECTION 12022.5 to be true.

This 23rd day of February 1987, Juli Juras, Foreman”.

“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE
We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find the Defendant
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL guilty of the crime of
MURDER, in violation of Section 187, Penal Code, a felony, as
charged in Count 4 of the Information and further find it to be
MURDER of the first degree.

And further find the allegation that in the commission and
attempted commission of the above offense the said defendant,
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally used a firearm,
to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of PENAL CODE
SECTION 12022.5 to be true.

This 23rd day of February 1987, Juli Juras, Foreman.”

The verdicts are read. The jury is polled as to each count and
all jurors answer in the affirmative. The verdicts are recorded;
re-reading as recorded is not waived. The clerk re-reads the
verdicts as recorded. Instructions given and refused

Page | of 2 pages MINUTES ENTERED

2/23/87
COUNTY CLERK

MINUTE ORDER

16

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPT. 116
Date: 2/23/87 || S LEFF Deputy Clerk
|
HONORABLE: || GHALL Reporter
RICHARD P. KALUSTIAN ||
JUDGE |

J RAMSEY Deputy Sheriff ||

A760386 (Parties and counsel checked if present)

PEOPLE OF THE Counsel for People:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:
VS.

01 SANDOVAL ALFRED Counsel for Defendant:

ARTHUR

187 04cts 664/187 01CT

NATURE OF CONTD JURY REM. _ 1/17/85
PROCEEDINGS FROM PAGE TRIAL

ONE
and all verdict forms as to Counts 3 and 4 are filed.

Penalty phase is set to commence 3/2/87, 9am, and the jury is
directed to return as the above date and time.

Defendant’s motion is set to be heard 2/24/87, 9am, this
department.

Page 2 of 2 pages
REMANDED

MINUTES ENTERED
2/23/87
COUNTY CLERK
MINUTE ORDER

scacenrneeptonmnn ssn

APPENDIX B

a EEE EEDA DET EE EEE Ee
17
: SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
‘ COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FILED
MAR 19 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN
COUNTY CLERK
BY:M. LeJEAL DEPUTY
| |CASENUMBER
The People of the | A760386
State of California | DEPARTMENT
| | NUMBER
| 116
PLAINTIFF(S) |
VS. |
|
SANDOVAL, ALFRED | VERDICT (Guilty)
ARTHUR | (LIFE WITHOUT THE
| POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)
DEFENDANT(S) |

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find in COUNT IL of

the information involving Gilbert Martinez that the appropriate
punishment to be imposed_on the Defendant, ALFRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, is the sentence of confinement in the

State Prison for life without the possibility of parole.

This 19th day of March 1987. /S/
Foreman

VERDICT

18

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FILED
MAR 19 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN
COUNTY CLERK
BY:M. LeJEAL
DEPUTY

CASE NUMBER
A760386
DEPARTMENT
NUMBER

116

The People of the
State of California

VS.

VERDICT
(LIFE WITHOUT THE
| POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)
DEFENDANT(S) |
|

SANDOVAL, ALFRED

|
|
|
|
|
PLAINTIFF(S) |
|
|
|
ARTHUR |

We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find in COUNT IL

of the information involving Anthony Aceves that the
appropriate punishment to be imposed on the Defendant,
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, is the sentence of

confinement in the State Prison for life without the possibility

of parole.

This 19th day of March 1987, /S/
Foreman

VERDICT

Ne AK BAN ene

pene Uh MALIK Mili itn lle ret Nel

19

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FILED
MAR 19 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN
COUNTY CLERK
BY:M. LeJEAL DEPUTY
| CASE NUMBER
The People of the | . A760386
State of California | DEPARTMENT
| NUMBER
| 116
PLAINTIFF(S) |
VS. |
|
SANDOVAL, ALFRED | VERDICT
ARTHUR | (LIFE WITHOUT THE
| POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE)
DEFENDANT(S) |

|
We, the jury in the above-entitled action, find in COUNT Il
of the information involving Raymond Wells that the
appropriate punishment to be imposed on the Defendant,
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, is the sentence of
confinement in the State Prison for life without the possibility
of parole.

This 19th day of March 1987, /S/
Foreman

VERDICT

20

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
FILED
MAR 19 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN
COUNTY CLERK
BY:M. LeJEAL DEPUTY
| CASE NUMBER
The People of the | A760386
State of California | DEPARTMENT
| NUMBER
| 116
PLAINTIFF(S) |
VS. |
|
SANDOVAL, ALFRED | VERDICT
ARTHUR | (DEATH)
|
DEFENDANT(S) |
|

We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find in COUNT IV
of the information involving Marlene Wells that the

appropriate punishment to be imposed on the Defendant,
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, is the sentence of death.

This 19th day of March 1987, /S/
Foreman

VERDICT

ee oe ee Ser te) Wee ae

21

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPT. 116
Date: March 19, 1987 || M LE JEAL Deputy Clerk

HONORABLE: || GHALL Reporter
RICHARD P. KALUSTIAN ||

JUDGE |
R ROBLEDO Deputy Sheriff ||

A760386 (Parties and counsel checked if present)

PEOPLE OF THE Counsel for People:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:
VS. D. MILTON

01 SANDOVAL, ALFRED Counsel for Defendant:

ARTHUR M KOPPLE/S APPLEBAUM

187 04 cts; 664/187 01 ct

NATURE OF JURY (PENALTY REM 1-17-85
PROCEEDINGS TRIAL PHASE)

At 7:45 a.m. the jury resumes deliberations with all members
present.

At 9:30 a.m. the jury announces through the Bailiff they have
reached a verdict. Verdicts are sealed, counsel are notified and
jury is excused pending the attorney’s arrival.

At 12:00 all counsel, defendant and jurors are present. Sealed
verdicts are opened by Court and the following verdicts are
ready by the Clerk:

“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE

We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find in Count I of the
Information involving Gilbert Martinez that the appropriate

22

punishment to be imposed on the Defendant, ALFRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, is the sentence of confinement in the
State Prison for life without possibility of parole.

This 19th day of March, 1987, Julieanne B. Juris, Foreman.”
“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE

We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find in Count II of the
Information involving Anthony Aceves that the appropriate
punishment to be imposed on the Defendant, FRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, is the sentence of confinement in the
State Prison for life without the possibility of parole.

This 19th day of March, 1987, Julieanne B. Juris, Foreman.”
“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE

We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find in Count III of
the Information involving Raymond Wells that the appropriate
punishment to be imposed on the Defendant, ALFRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, is the sentence of confinement in the
State Prison for life without the possibility of parole.

This 19th day of March, 1987, Julieanne B. Juris, Foreman.”
“TITLE OF COURT AND CAUSE

We, the Jury in the above-entitled action, find in Count IV of
the Information involving Marlene Wells that the appropriate
punishment to be imposed on the Defendant, ALFRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, is the sentence of Death.

This 19th day of March , 1987, Julieanne B. Juris, Foreman.”

PAGE ONE OF TWO PAGES
MINUTES ENTERED
rem 3-19-87
COUNTY CLERK

MINUTE ORDER

he Aedrhaey” ol ta Be, IM ilies

cls Aa RS AR ae IE Deln 2b i0a)as, Lteae

eee ee

jury is polled as to Count IV, with all jurors answering in the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPT. 116
Date: March 19, 1987 || M. LE JEAL Deputy Clerk
|
HONORABLE: || GHALL Reporter
RICHARD P. KALUSTIAN ||
JUDGE |
R ROBLEDO Deputy Sheriff ||

A760386 (Parties and counsel checked if present)

PEOPLE OF THE Counsel for People:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:
VS. D. MILTON

01 SANDOVAL, ALFRED Counsel for Defendant:

ARTHUR M KOPPLE/S APPLEBAUM

187 04 cts; 664/187 01 ct

NATURE OF JURY (PENALTY REM 1-17-85
PROCEEDINGS TRIAL PHASE)

Polling of the jury is waived as to Counts I, II and III and the
affirmative. Reading of the verdicts as recorded is waived. All

verdict forms, used and unused are filed. Instructions given and
refused are filed. The jury is thanked and discharged.

Matter is continued for Sentencing hearing on May 15, 1987 in
Department “P” Norwalk. Defendant is ordered to return.

PAGE TWO OF TWO PAGES
MINUTES ENTERED
rem 3-19-87
COUNTY CLERK
MINUTE ORDER

i

APPENDIX C

24

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

DEPT.SE P
Date: June 30, 1987 || J. DOMCIK Deputy Clerk
|
HONORABLE: ||G.HALL Reporter
RICHARD P. KALUSTIAN §|| ;
JUDGE |
R. ALLEN _ Deputy Sheriff ||

A760386 (Parties and counsel checked if present)

PEOPLE OF THE Counsel for People:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTY:
VS. D. MILTON

01 SANDOVAL ALFRED Counsel for Defendant:

ARTHUR M KOPPLE/

187.A 04 cts; 664/187 01 cts S APPLEBAUM

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS REM
JUDGMENT AND SENTENCING

Hearing on Defense motion for New Trial is called. The motion
is argued and denied as further reflected in the official notes of
the court reporter.

Hearing on Defense motion to modify Verdict of Death is
called. The motion is argued and denied as further reflected in
the official notes of the court reporter.

The Court orders that a new Probation Report be prepared
deleting lines 10-12, 15-22 on page 16 of the present report
dated 6-22-87.

The defendant having been found guilty of Section 187.A

25

Penal Code and one of the circumstances pursuant to Section
190.2(a)(3) Penal Code having been found true in the manner
prescribed by law, the defendant is sentenced to DEATH, as to
Count IV, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE.

Counts I, II, III, each a violation of Penal Code Section 187.A,
The defendant is sentenced to LIFE IN STATE PRISON
without the possibility of parole.

Count V, a violation of Penal Code Section 664/187.A, The
defendant is sentenced to the High term of 9 years in State
Prison, plus 3 years in State Prison as to the Great Bodily Injury
Allegations, for a total of 12 years State Prison.

The State Prison sentence in Counts I, II, III, and V is
permanently stayed upon the execution of sentence imposed in
Count IV.

The Sheriffis ordered to transport the defendant to State Prison,
to be held pending the decision upon his appeal.

The Commitment Judgment of Death is read and executed by
the Court in open court and attested to by the clerk under seal
of the court. Defendant is advised of automatic appeal.

REMANDED
MINUTES ENTERED
SEP 06-30-87
COUNTY CLERK
MINUTE ORDER

CO ies es

)

26

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FILED
JUN 30 1987
FRANK S. ZOLIN,
COUNTY CLERK
By: /S/
DEPUTY
PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) NO. A760386
OF CALIFORNIA, ) COMMITMENT
) JUDGEMENT OF
Plaintiff, ) DEATH
V. )
ALFRED ARTHUR ) DEPARTMENT
SANDOVAL, ) SOUTHEAST P
)
Defendant(s) )

TO THE SHERIFF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND
TO THE WARDEN OF THE STATE PRISON OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AT SAN QUENTIN:

BE IT REMEMBER that on the 22nd day of June, 1985,
an Information number A760386 was duly filed against the
defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, by the District
Attorney of Los Angeles County, charging said defendant with
the crimes of:

Count I: The murder of Gilbert Martinez on the 14th day
of October, 1984 in violation of Penal Code Section 187.

Count II: The murder of Anthony Aceves on the 14th day
of October, 1984 in violation of Penal Code Section 187.

Count III: The murder of Ray Wells on the 31st day of
October, 1984 in violation of Penal Code Section 187.

Count IV: The murder of Marlene Wells on the 31st day

27

of October, 1984 in violation of Penal Code Section 187.

Count V: The attempted murder of Manuel Torres on the
14th day of October, 1984 in violation of Penal Code Section
664/187.

It is further alleged that during the commission of Count
V the defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally
inflicted great bodily injury upon Manuel Torres within the
meaning of Penal Code Section 12022.7.

It is further alleged that during the commission of the
above offenses in Count I, II, III, IV and V, the defendant,
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, personally used a firearm
to wit, a handgun, within the meaning of Penal Code Section
12022.5.

It is further charged and alleged that the above murders in
Count |, II, II] and IV were committed under the following
special circumstances, to wit: the defendant, ALFRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, has in this proceeding been convicted
of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree
within the meaning of Penal Code Section 190.2 (a)(3).

It is further alleged that said defendant, ALFRED
ARTHUR SANDOVAL, was on or about the 25th day of
September, 1979, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, for the County of Los Angeles, convicted of a
violent felony, to wit, Assault With Intent to Murder, case
A524411, the he then served a separate term in State Prison for
said offense, and that he did not remain free of prison custody
for and did commit an offense resulting in a felony conviction
during, a period of five years subsequent to the conclusion of
said term, within the meaning of Penal Code Section 667(a),
667.5(a) and 1203 (e)(5).

Thereafter, defendant was duly arraigned, entered a plea of
not guilty to all charges, denied the prior conviction and the
special circumstances as set forth in the Information.

Thereafter, on October 28, 1986, the defendant and his
attorneys being present, the case came on for trial and the
selection of the jury was commenced.

28

Thereafter, evidence was duly presented to the trial jury as
to the issues raised by the defendant’s plea of not guilty, and his
denial of the special circumstances in the Information.

Thereafter, after the defense and prosecution concluded the
presentation of evidence, argument was made to said trial jury
by the prosecution and defense, and the court instructed said
trial jury as to the law applicable to the case.

Thereafter, on February 12, 1987 the jury returned verdicts
on Counts I, II and V as follows: Guilty on all counts; murders
to be in the first degree; true on all enhancements and speciai
circumstances found to be true.

Thereafter, on February 23, 1987 the jury returned verdicts
on Counts III and IV as follows: Guilty on both counts, murders
to be in the first degree; true on all enhancements.

Thereafter, the defendant, ALFRED ARTHUR
SANDOVAL, admitted as true the prior felony conviction
alleged pursuant to Penal Code Section 667(a), 667.5(a) and
1203(e)(5).

Thereafter, commencing on March 2, 1987 pursuant to
Penal Code Section 190.3, evidence was presented on behalf of
both the prosecution and the defense as to evidence in
aggravation and mitigation in regard to the proper penalty.
Thereafter, following arguments of all counsel and instructions
of law by the court, the said jury, on March 19, 1987, did return
a finding on each of the four murder counts as follows:

CountI: Confinement in the state prison for Life Without
the Possibility of Parole.

Count II: Confinement in the state prison for Life Without
the Possibility of Parole.

Count III: Confinement in the state prison for Life Without
the Possibility of Parole.

Count IV: Death.

Thereafter, on June 30, 1987 the defendant’s motion for a
new trial and for modification of the verdict and finding
imposing the death penalty were heard by the court and said
motions were denied, whereupon on June 30, 1987 the

29

defendant’s counsel stated there was no legal cause why
sentence should not be pronounced and the court pronounced
judgment as follows:

ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, it is the judgment and
sentence of this court for the offense of murder of victim
Marlene Wells as charged in Count IV of the information of
which you previously, to wit, on February 23, 1987, were
found guilty, the jury having found the offense of murder to be
the first degree and the jury having returned a finding that the
special circumstances alleged in the information under
California Penal Code Section 190.2(a)(3) were true; and the
jury having previously, to wit, on March 19, 1987 found that
the penalty shall be death; and this court having, on June 30,
1987 denied your motion for a new trial and application for
modification of verdict and finding imposing the death penalty;
it is the order of this court that you shall suffer the death
penalty, it is the order of this court that you shall suffer the
death penalty, said penalty to be inflicted within the walls of the
state prison at San Quentin, California, m the manner presented
by law and at a time to be fixed by this court in the warrant of
execution.

ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, it is the judgment and
sentence of this court for the offenses of murder of victims
Gilbert Martinez and Anthony Aceves as charged in Counts I
and II, respectively, of the Information of which you previously,
to wit, on February 12 1987, were found guilty, and for the
offense of murder of victim Ray wells as charged in Count II of
the Information of which you previously, to wit, on February
23, 1987, were found guilty, the jury having found the special
circumstances to be true and this court having, on June 30,
1987, denied your motion for new trial and application for
modification of verdict; it is the order of this court that you
shall suffer confinement in the state prison for Life Without the
Possibility of Parole; and for the attempted murder of Manuel
Torres with personal use of a firearm and personal infliction of
great bodily injury as charged in Count V of the Information of

eB Ne AS A tee Tita Nt ANS Ang Pt AS le ns 8

ee se ec

rs ee ee ne a

30

which you previously have been convicted on February 12,
1987, it is the order of this Court that you shall suffer a term of
9 years in state prison.

Such sentences, imposed on Counts I, II, III and V, to be
permanently stayed after execution of the sentence of death
imposed on Count IV for the murder of Marlene Wells.

ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, you are remanded to
the care, custody and control of the Sheriff of Los Angeles
County to be by him delivered to the warden of the State
Penitentiary at San Quentin, California, within 10 days from the
date hereof, in the usual course of his duties for the execution
of the sentence of the offenses of murder in the first degree
contained in the Information of which you have been found
guilty and the special circumstanced having been found to be
true, to be held by him pending the final determination of your
appeal in this matter, which is automatic, and said sentence to
be executed upon final determination of said appeal, and you
are to be held by him during said period of time, until further
order of this court. It is so ordered.

Therefore, this is to command you, the Sheriff of said
County of Los Angeles as provided in said judgment, to take
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL to the State Prison of the
State of California, and deliver him into the custody of the
warden of the said state prison; and this

FURTHER, is to command you, the Warden of the State
Prison of the State of California, at San Quentin, California, to
hold in your custody, the said ALFRED ARTHUR
SANDOVAL, pending the decision of this cause on appeal, and
upon the judgment herein becoming final, to carry into effect
the judgment of said court at a time and ona date to be hereafter
fixed by order of this court, with the State Prison, at which time
and place you shall then and there put to death the said
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL in the manner and means
prescribed by law.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand as Judge
of the said Superior Court, and have caused the seal of the said

31

court to be affixed hereto.

Dated, this 30th day of June
(SEAL) SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE LOS ANGELES
/S/ COUNTY
CLERK OF THE SUPERIOR COURT CALIFORNIA

Dated, this 30th day of June, 1987.

(SEAL)

SUPERIOR COURT OF

THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CALIFORNIA

RICHARD P. KALUSTIAN
JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT

APPENDIX D

32

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.
ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, Defendant and
Appellant.

No. $004765. Crim. No. 26405.
Supreme Court of California
Dec 14, 1992.
SUMMARY

Defendant was convicted of four counts of first degree murder
(Pen. Code, § 187), with a _ multiple-murder
special-circumstance finding (Pen. Code, § 190.2, subd. (a)(3)),
and one count of attempted murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664).
The jury also found that defendant had personally used a
firearm in the commission of each offense (Pen. Code, §
12022.5). Defendant had fatally shot two men and had wounded
another man during a gang-related confrontation in a park, and
had fatally shot a man and a woman in their home
approximately two weeks later. The jury returned a verdict of
death for the murder of the woman, and verdicts of life
imprisonment without possibility of parole for the murders of
the three men. (Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No.
A760386, Richard P. Kalustian, Judge.)

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. As to guilt phase
issues, the court held that the trial court did not err in denying
defendant's motion to sever, in admitting evidence of
defendant's gang affiliation, or in excluding evidence of the
alleged culpability of third parties. The court also held that
defendant's prior conviction of assault with intent to commit
murder was properly admitted for impeachment, and that the

33

trial court properly refused to rule, in advance of defendant's
testimony, on his request to limit the scope of
cross-examination. The court further held that the prosecutor
did not commit misconduct in cross-examining a defense expert
as to his bias and suggesting to the jury that the expert was a
liar, but that the prosecutor did engage in nonprejudicial
misconduct by denigrating defense counsel during closing
argument.

As to the penalty phase, the court held that the prosecutor did
not improperly cross-examine a defense witness concerning
defendant's gang membership, and that the trial court did not err
in refusing to give defendant's proposed instruction that age
could be considered only as a mitigating factor. The prosecutor
did not engage in misconduct, the court held, when he argued
the effect of defendant's crimes on the victims and their
families, but *156 did engage in nonprejudicial misconduct by
paraphrasing a biblical passage in support of the death penalty.
The court further held that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in refusing to declare a mistrial due to jury deadlock,
or in requiring a separate penalty verdict as to each murder
victim. (Opinion by Panelli, J., with Lucas, C. J., Kennard,
Arabian, Baxter and George, JJ., concurring. Separate
concurring and dissenting opinion by Mosk, J.)

HEADNOTES
Classified to California Digest of Official Reports

(1) Criminal Law § 202--Trial--Separate Trials on Different
Counts-- Severance Motion--Factors.

When the requirements of Pen. Code, § 954 (joinder and
severance of criminal charges), for joinder of different offenses
are satisfied, a defendant can predicate error on the trial court's
refusal to sever charges only by making a clear showing that
there is a substantial danger of prejudice requiring that the
charges be separately tried. The determination of prejudice is

dibasic Jaana

my

Stith tas te Petal € ha

APPENDIX H

169

MANUEL U. ARAUJO, ESQ., State Bar #65065
LAW OFFICE OF MANUEL U. ARAUJO
13330 Philadelphia Street

Whittier, CA 90601-4414

(310) 693-2855

MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON, ESQ., State Bar #66680

LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON

13330 Philadelphia Street

Whittier, CA 90601-4414 €

(310) 464-1140

Attorneys for Petitioner, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED ARTHUR
SANDOVAL CASE NO. CV 94-8206-R
Petitioner, [DEATH PENALTY]
VS. PETITION FOR WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS
ARTHUR CALDERON,

as Warden of
San Quentin State Prison,

Respondent.

Ne ee eee ee GS

170

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
EERIE cccccdcceseshasdvssereseawee |
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS .............. 6
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....ccccccccccsccees 14
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ............... 30
A. Fue BE: cccsacsvscdeubiveeayes 30
D. GU PROGR TI voccvcdndcesrensees 30
C. Penalty Phase ofthe Trial .............. 32
D. SOURGNE: «ccccticcindensevasenlae 32
CLAINES FURR EASE 6 6sctesedveven-crssncess 33

II

Il]

PETITIONER’S TRIAL WAS SO PERMEATED

BY INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF HIS
APPOINTED COUNSEL AND PREJUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT BY THE PROSECUTION THAT
THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO FUNDAMENTAL
FAIRNESS AT HIS TRIAL WAS VIOLATED. . 33

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT EVERY STAGE OF
THE PROCEEDING ..............0000000 35

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FIFTH,
SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, A FAIR TRIAL, SELF-
REPRESENTATION AND EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY AN ACTUAL

IV

Vi

Vil

171

CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN

HIMSELF AND HIS ATTORNEYS WHICH
ADVERSELY AFFECTED HIS

ATTORNEYS) ...... ccc ccccccccccccccccues 50

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FIFTH AND
SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS,
A FAIR TRIAL, AND SELF-REPRESENTATION BY
THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO GRANT HIS
PRETRIAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT

8 eer 57

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS
AND A FAIR TRIAL BY HIS EXCLUSION FROM
THE PROCEEDINGS AT WHICH HIS FARETTA
MOTION WAS ADDRESSED ......------- 60

THE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONDUCT AN
ADEQUATE AND TIMELY GUILT PHASE
INVESTIGATION .......--- 000202 eee 6.1

THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER'S
MOTION TO SEVER THE BELVEDERE PARK
MURDERS FROM THE WELLS MURDERS
RESULTED IN THE DEPRIVATION OF
PETITIONER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH,
SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT. .....------+++eee¢07° 63

172

Page No.

VIII PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE

IX

XI

XII

PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HIS
CONVICTION IN THE WELLS CASE WAS BASED
ON THE PERJURED TESTIMONY OF INFORMANT
ee er err ere 67

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HIS
CONVICTION IN THE WELLS CASE WAS BASED
ON THE PERJURED TESTIMONY OF INFORMANT
PMNS VERRAN 6c occ cnnsiwedina’ 68

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS
UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE HIS
CONVICTION WAS BASED UPON THE
IMPERMISSIBLY COERCED AND UNRELIABLE
TESTIMONY OF BENNY VERDUZCO....... 70

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS
AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE TRIAL COURT'S
FAILURE TO PERFORM ITS DUTY TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE OF BENNY VERDUZCO'S
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 1984 STATEMENTS
AND TRIAL TESTIMONY AS

ot Fe ae Pere re Terre yt 74

THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED PETITIONER’S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BY
ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO REPEATEDLY
PUT IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER’S
GANG AFFILIATION BEFORE THE JURY .. . 76

173

Page No.

XJII PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO A
FAIR TRIAL AND THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
OF LAW WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF GANG
ACTIVITIES AT THE GUILT PHASE WHICH
PREJUDICING THE PENALTY
opp ot reer reer errr 77

XIV PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND A
FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE
TO DISCLOSE THREATS INFLICTED AND
BENEFITS CONFERRED ON INFORMER CARLOS
TOSTADO IN RETURN FOR HIS
WEEE GNC RERK a daa ptenneadinncass 79

XV THE PROSECUTOR DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF
DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY
KNOWINGLY PRESENTING FALSE AND
MISLEADING TESTIMONY TO THE JURY AND
ARGUING THE TRUTH OF THAT
BIE o 5.6 ho 0s 6 4d a ane tae as 82

XVI TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE
AND PRESENT ANY MENTAL STATE DEFENSE
AT THE GUILT PHASE OF TRIAL DEPRIVED
PETITIONER OF EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
ll Serr ee Tee eT PE eee eee CLT 84

XVII THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO RULE ON
THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE CROSS-
EXAMINATION, IF PETITIONER TOOK
THE STAND TO TESTIFY ON THE BELVEDERE
PARK CASE, VIOLATED PETITIONER’S FIFTH
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TESTIFY ON HIS OWN

174

OE 6 cb 6 5 Gas ee ERO NOSE OES 87

XVITi

XIX

XX

XXI

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN
THE WELLS CASE BY THE FAILURE OF
TRIAL COUNSEL TO PRESENT AVAILABLE
EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN
PETITIONER COMMITTED THE CRIME... . 89

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION
OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE
THE PROSECUTOR COMMITTED MULTIPLE
INSTANCES OF MISCONDUCT IN HIS
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE
CRUCIAL ALIBI WITNESS IN THE WELLS
kt era re re Pa eee iy oye y 92

THE TRIAL COURT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
RESTRICTED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO
PRESENT A DEFENSE TO THE WELLS CASE
BY PRECLUDING EVIDENCE OF THIRD
PARTY CULPABILITY AND EVIDENCE OF
OTHER NAMES FOUND IN WELLS’ ADDRESS

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE
PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMINAL
ASSOCIATES OF RAY WELLS, WHOSE
ACTIVITIES MADE IT MORE LIKELY THAT A
FALLING-OUT WITH ONE OR MORE OF

175

Page No.

THEM RESULTED IN THE FATAL
RETALIATION OF NOVEMBER 1,

XXII © THE PROSECUTOR’S PREJUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT DURING CLOSING
ARGUMENT DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH,
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT . . .98

XXIII THE TRIAL COURT’S EVIDENTIARY
RULINGS VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW AND TOA
PAIR TRIALS i ons dcce sens cents 100

XXIV. THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATED
PETITIONER’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, A
FAIR TRIAL, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE, AND FREEDOM FROM CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT BY INVOKING
PURPORTED BIBLICAL AUTHORITY AND
URGING THE JURY TO IMPOSE THE DEATH
PENALTY AS A FORM OFDOINGGODS ° °+ + #»&»}»°ff
| errr rrr er tere, 102

XXV PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY
TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO
ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE AND PRESENT
MENTAL STATE MITIGATION AT THE
PENALTY TRIAL .....---- eee eee: 104

XXVI

Page No.

PETITIONER’S DEATH SENTENCE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSED IN LIGHT
OF THE JURY INSTRUCTION THAT HIS AGE
COULD, AND THE PROSECUTOR’S
ARGUMENT THAT IT SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED AS A FACTOR IN

Figg 2 is ue ¢ . Sanne a oer 106

XXVII

XXVIII

PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WERE VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT’S
REFUSAL TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AFTER
THE PENALTY JURY’S UNEQUIVOCAL
DECLARATION OF DEADLOCK... 108

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF A FULL
AND FAIR PENALTY HEARING BECAUSE
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF
CHILDHOOD TRAUMA AND ABUSE, FAR
EXCEEDING THAT PRESENTED AT TRIAL,
WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE JURY ... 110

PRATER FAs GMO 64a k ka eee ss ew ees 124

- As —* os , Se ; yp. :
ae ee ee ee ee te Ge egy | eas | ed a a Wn eee ame

APPENDIX I

177

MANUEL U. ARAUJO, ESQ., State Bar #65065
LAW OFFICE OF MANUEL U. ARAUJO
13330 Philadelphia Street

Whittier, CA 90601-4414

(310) 693-2855

MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON, ESQ.., State Bar #66680
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL S. MAGNUSON
13330 Philadelphia Street

Whittier, CA 90601-4414

(310) 464-1140

Attorneys for Petitioner, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED ARTHUR )
SANDOVAL ) CASE NO. CV 94-8206-R
Petitioner, [DEATH PENALTY]
VS. AMENDED PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
ARTHUR CALDERON, as ) CORPUS

Warden of San Quentin
State Prison,

Respondent.

a ee a ee ae

178

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
TE. vo sien eKed pa ec spe eedeaeueees 1
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS .............. 6
FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2... .ccccscccnncess 14
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ................ 30
ee er Pr rrr eS 30
ee SE FP OE SUE onic is vec ccs sacs, 30
C. Penalty Phase of the Trial .......... 32
ee NS aa baketers lee eu as 32
er ES 8 | errr rere arr rE 33

I

II

Ill

PETITIONER’S TRIAL WAS SO PERMEATED
BY INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF HIS
APPOINTED COUNSEL AND PREJUDICIAL
MISCONDUCT BY THE PROSECUTION THAT
THE PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO
FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS AT HIS TRIAL
Ee WINNER od 6 sewn s dae es 33

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF THE EFFECTIVE
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AT EVERY STAGE OF
THE PROCEEDING ... 35

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FIFTH,
SIXTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, A FAIR TRIAL, SELF-
REPRESENTATION AND EFFECTIVE

IV

VI

Vil

179

ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY AN ACTUAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST BETWEEN HIMSELF
AND HIS ATTORNEYS WHICH ADVERSELY
AFFECTED HIS ATTORNEYS’ .......... 50

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS FIFTH AND
SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS,
A FAIR TRIAL, AND SELF-REPRESENTATION BY
THE TRIAL COURT'S FAILURE TO GRANT HIS
PRETRIAL REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF...
eee 57

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS
AND A FAIR TRIAL BY HIS EXCLUSION FROM
THE PROCEEDINGS AT WHICH HIS FARETTA
MOTION WAS ADDRESSED........... 60

THE TRIAL COUNSEL FAILED TO CONDUCT AN
ADEQUATE AND TIMELY GUILT PHASE
TCV Ele SUR RMUES bo screws eo sand saan 61

THE TRIAL COURT’S DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S
MOTION TO SEVER THE BELVEDERE PARK
MURDERS FROM THE WELLS MURDERS
RESULTED IN THE DEPRIVATION OF
PETITIONER’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH,
SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT ......... 63

VIII PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE

PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HIS
CONVICTION IN THE WELLS CASE WAS BASED
ON THE PERJURED TESTIMONY OF INFORMANT
BENNY VERDUZCO. ...... 67

oe

IX

XI

XII

180

PETITIONER WAS DENIED HIS RIGHT TO DUE
PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BECAUSE HIS
CONVICTION IN THE WELLS CASE WAS BASED
ON THE PERJURED TESTIMONY OF INFORMANT
BENNY VERDUZCO...... 68

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHTS
UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE HIS
CONVICTION WAS BASED UPON THE
IMPERMISSIBLY COERCED AND UNRELIABLE
TESTIMONY OF BENNY VERDUZCO.............

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS
AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE TRIAL COURT'S
FAILURE TO PERFORM ITS DUTY TO
EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF BENNY VERDUZCO'S
NOVEMBER/DECEMBER, 1984 STATEMENTS
AND TRIAL TESTIMONY AS INVOLUNTARY ....
‘wie Ace ee 74

THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED PETITIONER’S
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BY
ALLOWING THE PROSECUTOR TO
REPEATEDLY PUT IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE OF
PETITIONER’S GANG AFFILIATION BEFORE
TESS FMS <5 vec kcdeteaneeae 76

XIII PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TOA

FAIR TRIAL AND THE RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
OF LAW WHEN THE TRIAL COURT
ERRONEOUSLY ADMITTED EVIDENCE OF GANG
ACTIVITIES AT THE GUILT PHASE WHICH |
PREJUDICING THE PENALTY

EUR LEP EOUNS ccc venccaciaseseeas 77

XIV

181

PETITIONER WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS

AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE PROSECUTION'S
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE THREATS
INFLICTED AND BENEFITS CONFERRED ON
INFORMER CARLOS TOSTADO IN RETURN
FOR ee rer pp ere

XV THE PROSECUTOR DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF

DUE PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY
KNOWINGLY PRESENTING FALSE AND
MISLEADING TESTIMONY TO THE JURY AND

ARGUING THE TRUTH OF THAT
REUTERS 5-06 5.6 ca uueee cuuyeesors 82

XVI

XVII

XVIII

TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO
INVESTIGATE AND PRESENT ANY MENTAL
STATE DEFENSE AT THE GUILT PHASE OF
TRIAL DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.....
ccnwen 84

THE TRIAL COURT’S REFUSAL TO RULE ON
THE SCOPE OF PERMISSIBLE CROSS-
EXAMINATION, IF PETITIONER TOOK THE
STAND TO TESTIFY ON THE BELVEDERE
PARK CASE, VIOLATED PETITIONER’S
FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TESTIFY

ON HIS OWN BEHALF ................ 87

Page Nos.

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN
THE WELLS CASE BY THE FAILURE OF

XX

XX]

182

TRIAL COUNSEL TO PRESENT AVAILABLE
EVIDENCE THAT SOMEONE OTHER THAN
PETITIONER COMMITTED THE

| Pee Pre rere Ty ee T Ee yT Ter eree 89

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IN VIOLATION
OF THE FIFTH, SIXTH, EIGHTH, AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS BECAUSE
THE PROSECUTOR COMMITTED MULTIPLE
INSTANCES OF MISCONDUCT IN HIS
IMPROPER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE
CRUCIAL ALIBI WITNESS IN THE
WE si 5) nod badckdews baees 92

THE TRIAL COURT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY
RESTRICTED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO PRESENT
A DEFENSE TO THE WELLS CASE BY
PRECLUDING EVIDENCE OF THIRD PARTY
CULPABILITY AND EVIDENCE OF OTHER
NAMES FOUND IN WELLS’ ADDRESS
ere er rhe PP mere oF 94

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE
PROCESS AND A FAIR TRIAL BY THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE
EVIDENCE OF OTHER CRIMINAL
ASSOCIATES OF RAY WELLS, WHOSE
ACTIVITIES MADE IT MORE LIKELY THAT A
FALLING-OUT WITH ONE OR MORE OF
THEM RESULTED IN THE FATAL
RETALIATION OF NOVEMBER

XXII ©THE PROSECUTOR’S PREJUDICIAL

MISCONDUCT DURING CLOSING

183

ARGUMENT DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF HIS
RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH,
EIGHTH, AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT .
ey eee 98

XXIII THE TRIAL COURT’S EVIDENTIARY
RULINGS VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW AND TOA
FA RO h ses dso sr eewewnpsaee ead 100

XXIV THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATED
PETITIONER’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS, A
FAIR TRIAL, SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND
STATE, AND FREEDOM FROM CRUEL AND
UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT BY INVOKING
PURPORTED BIBLICAL AUTHORITY AND
URGING THE JURY TO IMPOSE THE
DEATH PENALTY AS A FORM OF DOING
GOD’S WORK ..... 102

XXV — ~PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED THE
EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY
TRIAL COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO
ADEQUATELY INVESTIGATE AND
PRESENT MENTAL STATE MITIGATION AT
- THE PENALTY
WE oc aks cvespcnctsReaeeeubee 104

XXVI_ PETITIONER’S DEATH SENTENCE WAS
UNCONSTITUTIONALLY IMPOSED IN
LIGHT OF THE JURY INSTRUCTION THAT
HIS AGE COULD, AND THE
PROSECUTOR’S ARGUMENT THAT IT
SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A
FACTOR IN AGGRAVATION ...............

XXVII

XXVIII

184

PETITIONER’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
WERE VIOLATED BY THE TRIAL COURT’S
REFUSAL TO DECLARE A MISTRIAL AFTER
THE PENALTY JURY’S UNEQUIVOCAL
DECLARATION OF DEADLOCK ...........
<a

PETITIONER WAS DEPRIVED OF A FULL
AND FAIR PENALTY HEARING BECAUSE
NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OF
CHILDHOOD TRAUMA AND ABUSE, FAR
EXCEEDING THAT PRESENTED AT
TRIAL, WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE
JURY.... 110

a bg 3.8 8 ere eer oe 124

~t — .

185

Petitioner, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, by and
through his counsel, hereby respectfully petitions this court for
a Wnit of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 et seq.,
and by this verified petition sets forth the following grounds for
the issuance of such writ.

Petitioner’s confinement is unconstitutional because his
conviction, special circumstances findings and judgment of
death were unlawfully imposed in violation of the Fifth, Sixth,
Eighth, atid Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution. Petitioner is entitled to habeas corpus relief
because he is innocent of two of the counts on which he was
convicted, including that for which he received the death
penalty; and he had a legitimate self-defense claim to the other
two counts which was not adequately presented at the trial,
resulting in a conviction obtained in violation of Petitioner’s
constitutional rights.

INTRODUCTION

“Ghandi said we do this eye for an eye thing, make »

society require it and do it, what happens is the whole

world becomes blind... Don’t make the world blind,

Don’t push that button.” (RT 6513)

[Seymour Applebaum, defense attorney during

closing argument - penalty phase].

Mr. Appelbaum says don't play God. Let every

person be in subjection to the governing authorities

for there is no authority except from God and those

which are established by God. . .

“You are not playing God. You are doing what God

says...”

[Deputy District Attorney, David Milton, during closing
argument--penalty phase].

Petitioner was charged in Los Angeles Superior Court
Information No. A70386 with two counts of murder and acount
of attempted murder arising from a shooting on October 14,

186

1984 (the Belvedere Park case) and two additional counts of
murder arising from a shooting on October 31, 1984 (the Wells
case). Trial began on November 25, 1986, and guilty verdicts
were returned as to the Belvedere Park shootings on February
12, 1987, and as to the Wells shootings on February 23. The
penalty trial began on March 2, 1987. During the penalty
phase, over defense objection, the prosecutor argued to the jury
that by rendering a verdict of death they would be doing God’s
work. After the trial court refused the defense request for a
single unitary verdict, the jury returned three life verdicts and
one death verdict, despite their earlier declared even split
deadlock (CT 1681; 1733). The trial court subsequently denied
petitioner's motions for new trial and to reduce the sentence,
and imposed a judgment of death (CT 1743).

Petitioner, ALFRED ARTHUR SANDOVAL, As on death
row in San Quentin Prison for reasons that are entirely unrelated
to his guilt or innocence of the crimes for which he has been
convicted and sentenced to death. Those reasons include the
following:

1. The October 14 shooting occurred in Belvedere Park
in East Los Angeles. Petitioner acknowledges that he shot two
Hispanic males. He contends that he arrived at the park in the
midst ofa fight occurring between these men and another group
of Hispanic males and that the shootings were in self-defense.
Petitioner was unable to adequately present evidence in support
of the self-defense claim because trial counsel failed to
investigate and present at trial crucial witnesses to establish
Petitioner’s objective and subjective belief that his life and the
lives of his friends were in jeopardy.

2. Mr. Sandoval filed a motion prior to trial seeking the
right to represent himself In Pro Per. Plaintiff's trial counsel,
court appointed and paid by the County of Los Angeles, failed
to properly present the motion to the court and then failed to
fully advise petitioner of the status of the motion. Despite a
clear conflict of interest the attorneys disposed of the motion
without petitioner’s presence and without his informed consent.

187

3. Due to a combination of trial court error and
ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Mr. Sandoval was not
permitted to testify in his own behalf. First, the trial court
improperly denied repeated motions to sever the Belvedere Park
case from the later October 31 Wells shootings. This put Mr.
Sandoval in a position where his desire to testify regarding the
Belvedere Park incident would subject him to cross-
examination on the Wells killings.

4. Despite the Court’s ruling, Mr. Sandoval wanted to
testify. He would have explained his actions in self-defense in
the Belvedere Park shootings. Further he would have testified
consistent with his alibi defense that he was in Tecate, Mexico,
when an unknown person killed the Wells. He also would have
testified that he never called Benny Verduzco to tell him that he
had just killed the Wells. Despite Mr. Sandoval’s desire to
testify, his trial counsel refused to put him on the stand. This
decision cannot be justified as reasonable trial strategy. Trial
counsel failed to put on any evidence of self-defense to the
Belvedere murder counts. Failure to put the defendant on the
stand exacerbated trial counsels’ failure to investigate and call
witnesses that could have corroborated his self-defense claim.

5. Mr. Sandoval was also the one person who could have
contradicted Benny Verduzco’s testimony that on the night of
the Wells murders petitioner had called Benny Verduzco to tell
him that he killed them. Petitioner’s defense to the October 31,
shooting of Ray and Marlene Wells was that he was in Tecate,
Mexico at the time of these shootings. Ray Wells was a local
crime figure involved in drug dealing, car theft, receiving stolen
property, and other illegal activities. There were no eyewitness
identifications of any perpetrators to that shooting, or any
physical evidence demonstrating petitioner’s presence at the
time of the offense. The prosecution’s theory regarding the
Wells shootings was based solely on an informer’s testimony
that the petitioner made an inculpatory statement to the
informer in a subsequent telephone conversation. Mr. Sandoval
presented an affirmative alibi defense to the charges but his trial

188

counsel failed to thoroughly investigate the many witnesses
who could place Mr. Sandoval in Mexico at the time of the
Wells shootings. Because of this tardy and incomplete
investigation, Mr. Sandoval’s trial attorneys were only able to
put on two weak alibi witnesses who, because of their
background, were susceptible to impeachment by the
prosecution.

6. In addition to the self-defense and alibi evidence,
defense counsel had available evidence of third party culpability
for the Wells shootings but failed to adequately investigate and
marshal this evidence in a manner that the trial court deemed
admissible. To compound the problem, the evidence that was
garnered by the defense was improperly rejected by the trial
court. So, despite the fact that the defense in its opening
statement promised the jury evidence of third party culpability
no such evidence was ever presented.

7. With respect to the Wells shootings, the prosecution
was totally dependent on the coerced testimony of informant
Benny Verduzco regarding a purported extra judicial admission
by Mr. Sandoval. Similarly, the prosecution relied heavily on
the testimony of informer Carlos Tostado to negate the claim of
self-defense regarding the October 14 Belvedere Park
shootings. Notwithstanding significant questions regarding the
informers' credibility, the prosecution failed to disclose crucial
information regarding these witnesses’ bias and reliability and
the substantial benefits conferred on the informers as well as
law enforcement threats and sanctions inflicted on both
informers. As a result, the jury had a distorted view of the
informers’ credibility.

8. Indeed, subsequent to the trial, Benny Verduzco
recanted his testimony and has repeatedly stated to a state
habeas investigator, and alluded to in his written declarations,
that he never received a telephone call from Mr. Sandoval
admitting to the Wells killing.

9. Trial counsel failed to obtain crucial information
regarding Mr. Sandoval’s history of mental illness and failed to

189

present at either the guilt phase or penalty phase of the trial any
evidence whatsoever regarding Petitioner’s mental state. As
described herein, Mr. Sandoval had a long history of abuse as
a child as well as extensive and protracted drug use and a
history of traumatic physical injury to the head. A reasonable
inquiry into the medical condition would have revealed
physiological, psychological and organic disabilities that trial
counsel could have presented in support of both the self-defense
claim as well as mitigation in the penalty phase of the trial.

10. Despite the limitations placed on Petitioner’s ability
to adequately present a substantive defense and the fact that as
a result of improper voir dire by the prosecution, the jury was
“uncommonly willing to condemn” Mr. Sandoval, the jury
announced an unequivocal deadlock on the penalty trial after
three and one-half days of deliberation. Instead of declaring a
mistrial, however, the court instructed the jury to continue
deliberations. The next day they returned with a seemingly
arbitrary compromise verdict of life imprisonment with respect
to counts 1, 2, and 3, and a verdict of death as to count 4.

11. A number of unusual and mutually reinforcing facts
require reversai of the penalty verdict in this case. The
prosecution permeated the penalty trial with impermissible
aggravation by inflammatory gang evidence, argued Petitioner’s
age against him, improperly attacked defense counsel, and
impermissibly urged the jury to imagine the suffering incurred
by the victims fansi'ies, present in court.

12. Perhaps most significantly, in terms of the probable
impact on the jury, was the prosecution’s statement during
closing argument in the penalty phase of the trial that, by
rendering a verdict of death, the jury would be “doing God’s
work.” In language that the California Supreme Court has
deemed improper (though not prejudicial) the deputy district
attorney invoked the authority of the Bible as a justification for
the death penalty and the higher authority of God as a reason to
impose the death penalty in this case. Thus, the prosecution
called on the jury to follow religious scripture as opposed to the

190

secular law of the State of California and the United States
Constitution. The prosecution’s interweaving of church
doctrine and state law violated the defendant’s rights under the
First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States
Constitution. Swaying the jury’s conscience by this method of
rhetoric is antithetic to the First Amendment’s requirement of
the separation of church and state. This issue alone, in the
context of the highly charged and evenly divided jury
deliberations, requires reversal of the sentence of death.

13. The petition contains a number of other claims based
on federal constitutional law, which individually and
cumulatively undermined the fundamental fairness of the
convictions and sentence in this case. The particulars of these
claims are set forth below. The prejudice resulting from these
habeas corpus claims is particularly acute with respect to the
penalty decision in the case. In light of the difficulty of the
penalty deliberations and the arbitrariness manifested in the
final resolution, Petitioner asserts that any additional quantum
of prejudice emanating from the habeas corpus claims must be
deemed sufficient to require a new penalty trial.

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS”

1. Place of Detention: California State Prison at San
Quentin, Tamal, California.

2. Conviction on which petition is based:

a. Nature of offenses: First degree murder with
special circumstances, three counts of murder with special
circumstances, one count of attempted murder.

b. California Penal Code Sections: 187,
190.2(a)(3)(b), 664/187, 12022.5

c. Name and location of sentencing court:

1. The initial allegations are set forth in a manner
consistent with this court’s standard form for such petitions.
See, Rules Governing Section 2254 cases in the United States
District Courts, Appendix.

191

Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
California.
Case No.: A760386.
Date of conviction: February 23, 1987
Date of sentence: May 15, 1987
g. Sentences: Death, three sentences of life without
parole, twelve years
h. Plea: Not guilty
i. Kind of trial: jury.
j. Kind of trial: jury.
k. Did Petitioner testify at trial: No.
3. Did Petitioner appeal from conviction of sentence:
yes.
= 4. a. Direct appeal:
(1) Name of court: California Supreme Court
No. S004765, Criminal No. 26405.
(2) Result: Affirmed.
(3) Date of result: December 14, 1992
(4) Citation to state Supreme Court opinion: 4
Cal.4th 155, 14 Cal.Rptr.2d 342 (Cal. 1992)
(5) In summary, the grounds asserted in the
appeal included, but were not limited to,
trial court error in:
) i. The trial court committed prejudicial
error in Denying Petitioner's Motion To

moo

Sever the Belvedere Park Murders From
the Wells murders.

li. The trial court erroneously permitted
the prosecutor to systematically exercise
his peremptory challenges to excuse those
prospective jurors who had expressed some
scruples about imposition of the death
penalty but who were not excludable for
cause under Witherspoon.

iil. The trial court committed prejudicial

192

error in allowing the prosecutor to
repeatedly put irrelevant evidence of
Petitioner's gang affiliation before the jury.
iv. The trial court
unconstitutionally restricted Petitioner's
right to present a defense to the Wells case
by precluding evidence of third party
culpability and evidence of other names
found in Wells’ address book.
v. The trial court committed prejudicial
error in allowing the prosecutor to use
Petitioner's prior conviction for
impeachment purposes.
vi. The Trial Court violated petitioner’s
Fifth Amendment right to testify on his
own behalf by effectively coercing his
silence in refusing to rule on the scope of
permissible cross examination of petitioner
if he took the stand to testify on the Park
case
vii. The prosecutor committed prejudicial
misconduct by cross-examining the crucial
defense witness in the Park case, Dr.
Trockman, regarding his testimony in other
cases in order to show the expert was
"lying" to the jury in this case.
vill. The prosecutor committed multiple
instances of misconduct in his improper
cross-examination of the crucial alibi
witness in the Wells case.
ix. Petitioner's convictions must be
reversed because the prosecutor's pervasive
and prejudicial misconduct during closing
argument deprived him of Due Process and
a Fair Trial.
x. The erroneously admitted evidence of

—eeeeeeeEeEeeeEeEeeeEeEeEeEEeEeEeOowre

gang activities at the guilt phase prejudiced
the penalty determination, particularly in
light of the prosecutor's penalty argument.
xi. Petitioner's death sentence was
unconstitutionally imposed in light of the
jury instruction that his age could, and the
prosecutor's argument that it should, be
considered as a factor in aggravation.

Xii. Petitioner's State and Federal
constitutional rights to Due Process and
Freedom from Cruel and Unusual
Punishment were violated by the trial
court's approval of the prosecutor's appeal
for the jury to speculate and imagine the
nature and magnitude of the suffering
incurred by the decedents and_ their
surviving families. xiii. The prosecutor
violated Petitioner's rights to Due Process,
and a Fair Trial, and Separation of Church
and State. xiv. Petitioner's State and
Federal Constitutional rights were violated
by the trial court's refusal to declare a
mistrial after the penalty jury's unequivocal
declaration of deadlock. XV.
Petitioner's State and _ Federal
Constitutional nghts to Due Process and
Freedom from Cruel and Unusual
Punishment were violated by the trial
court's refusal to require the jury to return
a unitary penalty verdict of death or life
without parole xvi. The penalty
determination was tainted by a misleading
instruction and improper argument
regarding the weighing of aggravating and
mitigating factors. xvi. The
closeness of the penalty determination in

194

this case requires reversal because of the

cumulative prejudicial effect of the

multiple penalty phase errors and

misconduct.

b. Petition for Rehearing:

(1) Name of court: California Supreme
Court.

(2) Result: denied.

(3) Date of result: February 10, 1993.

(4) Citation to state Supreme Court
opinion: 4 Cal.4th 155, 14
Cal.Rptr.2d 342 (Cal. 1992)

(5) Grounds included, but were not
limited to, that the court erred in:
i. The trial court committed
prejudicial error in allowing the
prosecutor to repeatedly put irrelevant
evidence of Petitioner's gang
affiliation before the jury.

ii. The trial Court
unconstitutionally restricted
Petitioner's right to present a defense
to the Wells case by precluding
evidence of third party culpability and
evidence of other names found in
Wells’ address book.

ill. Petitioner's State and Federal
Constitutional rights to Due Process
and Freedom from Cruel and Unusual
Punishment were violated by the trial
court's approval of the prosecutor's
appeal for the jury to speculate and
imagine the nature and magnitude of
the suffering incurred by the
decedents and their surviving families.
iv. Petitioner was deprived of Due

_—~. ?

Process, a Fair Trial, Separation of
Church and State, and freedom from
Cruel and Unusual Punishment by the
trial court's erroneous failure to curb
the prosecutor's invocation of biblical
authority to argue for the death
penalty as a form of doing "God's
work".

v. Petitioner's State and Federal
Constitutional Rights to Due Process
and freedom from Cruel and Unusual
Punishment were violated by the trial
court's refusal to require the jury to
retum a unitary penalty verdict of
death or life without parole.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari from direct
appeal:

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

(5)

Name of court: United States
Supreme Court.

Result: denied.

Date of Result: March 22, 1994.
Citation or number: 114 S.Ct. 1239
(1994)

In summary, the grounds asserted in
the writ included, but were not limited
to:

i. Whether Petitioner was deprived of
Due Process and a Fair jury trial by
the use of Constitutionally defective
reasonable doubt instructions which
invited the jury to base its verdict on
improper "moral" considerations
rather than on an_ evidentiary
evaluation.

li. Whether Petitioner was deprived
of Due Process and freedom from

196

Cruel and Unusual punishment by the
California Supreme Court's failure to
conduct a constitutionally adequate
harmless error review of the
fundamental error recognized in the |
penalty phase.

ili. Whether the California Supreme
Court's astronomical affirmance rate
since 1990, outstripping every other
Capital sentencing jurisdiction in the
country, demonstrates a pervasive
abdication of its responsibility to
conduct constitutionally adequate
harmless error review, leaving
unredressed the Constitutional
violations in Petitioner's case.
(Pensinger_v. California, 116
L.Ed.2d 290 (1991) {O'Connor, J.,
joined by Kennedy, J., dissenting
from denial of certiorari, finding the
California Supreme Court's "cursory
review...clearly insufficient" ].)

5. Other than a direct appeal, has Petitioner previously
filed any petitions, application or motions with respect to this
conviction in any court, state or federal: yes.

6. a. (1) Nameofcourt: California Supreme Court.

(2) Nature of proceeding: Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus.

(3) Grounds included but were not limited to:
i. Petitioner was deprived of Due Process
by the failure of the prosecution to disclose
the extended course of coercion in which
law enforcement alternately inflicted
sanctions and conferred benefits to ensure
Verduzco's testimonial cooperation.

ii. The prosecutor's knowing presentation

197

of false and misleading testimony to the
jury, compounded by the prosecutor
arguing the truth of that testimony,
deprived Petitioner of Due Process and a
Fair Trial.

lil. Petitioner was deprived of Due Process
and a Fair Trial by the admission of
Verduzco's involuntary and coerced
November/December 1984 statements and
trial testimony.

iv. Petitioner was deprived of Due Process
and a Fair Trial by the introduction of false
evidence against him at trial.

v. Petitioner was deprived of Due Process
and a Fair Trial by the prosecution's failure
to disclose additional sources of bias which
skewed Verduzco's testimony against
Petitioner.

vi. Petitioner was deprived of Due Process
and a Fair Trial by the prosecution's failure
to disclose evidence of other criminal
cohorts of Ray Wells, including individuals
involved in large-scale drug trafficking and
pornography/prostitution, whose
connections made it more likely that a
falling-out with one or more of them
caused the fatal retaliation of November 1,
1984.

vii. Petitioner was deprived of the
Effective Assistance of Counsel in the
Wells case by the failure of trial counsel to
present available evidence of third party
culpability.

vill. Petitioner was denied Due Process
and a Fair Trial by the prosecution's failure
to disclose threats inflicted and benefits

198

conferred on informer Carlos Tostado in
return for his testimony.

ix. Petitioner was deprived of Due Process
and a Fair Trial by the prosecution's
knowing use of false testimony by Tostado.
x. Trial Counsel's failure to investigate and
present any mental state defense at guilt
phase of trial deprived him of effective
assistance of counsel.

xi. Petitioner was deprived of the Effective
Assistance of Counsel by Trial counsel's
failure to investigate and present the best
available evidence of violent assaultive
conduct by the victims.

xii. Petitioner was deprived of his Fifth
and Sixth Amendment Rights to Due
Process, a Fair Trial, and Self
Representation by the trial court's failure to
grant his pretrial request to represent
himself.

xill. Petitioner was deprived of his State
and Federal Constitutional Rights to Due
Process and a Fair Trial by his exclusion
from the critical proceeding at which his
Faretta motion was addressed.

xiv. Petitioner was deprived of a full and
fair penalty trial in light of newly
discovered mental state mitigating
evidence; or in the alternative, Petitioner
was deprived of the Effective Assistance of
counsel by trial counsel's failure to
adequately investigate and present mental
state mitigation.

xv. Petitioner was deprived of a full and
fair penalty hearing because newly
discovered evidence of childhood trauma

199

and abuse, far exceeding that presented at
trial, was not presented to the jury.
xvi. Petitioner was denied Due Process and
Equal Protection by the arbitrary and
discriminatory imposition of the death
penalty based on Unconstitutional factors
related to himself and the victims.
xvii. Petitioner was denied Due Process
and Constitutional protections afforded by
the First and Eighth Amendment by the
prosecutor's false and misleading argument
to the penalty jury that the New Testament
supported Capital Punishment in this case.

(4) Result: denied “on the merits.”

(5) Date of Result: July 7, 1993.

(6) Case No. S026386.

7. Was an evidentiary hearing held: no.

8. Petitioner presently has no appeal or other
proceedings pending in any other court regarding these
convictions.

As set forth below, Petitioner is being held under
convictions and sentence of death in violation of the
constitution and laws of the United States.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Petitioner’s childhood and adolescence were scarred by
physical and psychological trauma, neurological damage, and
serious, chronic drug and alcohol abuse. Expert testimony
regarding Mr. Sandoval’s mental impairments is relevant to his
diminished capacity and lack of intent with regard to the
offenses charged in the guilt and penalty phases of petitioner’s
trial, and with respect to mitigation and lingering doubt in the
penalty phase. Petitioner’s trial counsel failed to present at
either the guilt or penalty phase of petitioner’s trial this crucial
evidence of mental impairment.

Mr. Sandoval’s history of neurological deficit is
significant. It is likely that he experienced prenatal insult from

200

such factors as poor nutrition, toxic exposure, and physical
trauma from internal and alcohol ingestion. Both his parents
were abusive and as a child Mr. Sandoval suffered many head
blows. By first grade difficulties with concentration and
learning were already apparent. His mother introduced him to
alcohol at age six or seven and he was drinking regularly by age
11. He added glue sniffing shortly thereafter and mixed
alcohol and barbiturates by age 13. All of these intoxicating
substances aggravated the dysfunctions already present. None
of his difficulties received any therapeutic attention. Mr.
Sandoval’s recollection of head blows began about age 12 and
continued for the next ten years or so. He suffered at least 14
head blows involving loss of consciousness. A 1984 car
accident exaggerated the effects of his heavy use of
hallucinogens, alcohol, heroin, amphetamines, cocaine, and
barbiturates. At the time of the Belvedere Park shootings in
October, 1984, his mental state was clouded by brain damage,
severe emotional trauma, and intoxication.

The results of neuropsychological testing show significant
damage to Mr. Sandoval’s right frontal lobe, the area of the
brain which provides the function of impulse control, reflection,
self-control, planning, and volition. He has been diagnosed as
suffering from organic personality syndrome. His years of
familial and environmental chaos, trauma, and violence also
have left him with a post traumatic stress disorder. Mr.
Sandoval’s deficiencies leave him unable to react in a
considerate and thoughtful manner. His reactions under
situations of stress and surprise are virtually automatic, ill
considered, rash and violent. Additionally, has completely lost
his ability to refrain from substance abuse which further
diminishes his capacity for self-control.

Mr. Sandoval’s father died when the boy was seven years
old. Shortly thereafter his mother virtually abandoned him and
his siblings for a number of years, thus removing any
semblance of adult stability in his life. Not only did he lack any
positive reinforcement, but he was forced to provide some

201

semblance of structure for his younger brothers and sisters.

In addition to this extreme emotional deprivation as a
child, Mr. Sandoval grew up in an environment of virtual
warfare in his barrio neighborhood and correctional facilities.
In the violent ghetto world where he was raised, Mr. Sandoval
learned as a matter of survival that an attack could occur
virtually at any time and that only an instantaneous, basically
instinctual response would be adequate for self-preservation.
His youth was filled with multiple physical traumas from fights,
car accidents, and substance abuse. He consumed prodigious
amounts of intoxicants, including glue sniffing, heroin, and
LSD. The recurrent traumatic stresses in his life, in the context
of an extremely violent and dangerous community, has caused
post traumatic stress disorder in Mr. Sandoval as an adult. This
disorder overlaps and exaggerates his avoidant--dependent
personality disorder resulting from the lack of family structure
through his developmental years. The resulting personality
deficit renders him much less capable of reacting to unexpected
confrontations or other stresses as another adult who had a more
emotionally stable personality core. Moreover, the violence
inflicted on Mr. Sandoval during his upbringing, in beatings by
his step-father, fights with peers, automobile accidents, and
substance abuse, established an organic brain disorder
superimposed on the personality disorders. The result is a
decrease in his ability to cope with stress, surprise, or the
perception of danger in a reasoned and considerate manner.
Rather, these debilitating influences combine to make Mr.
Sandoval extremely vulnerable to impulsive unthinking
reactions to traumatic situations. Under these circumstances,
he had available a substantial mental state defense to the
elements of both first and second degree murder with respect to
the Belvedere Park shootings.

Belvedere Park Shootings.

On October 13, 1984, Mr. Sandoval was "hanging out"
with a group of his friends including Steve Moriel, John
Walters, and Ralph Ortega. Late in the evening Ralph Ortega

202

announced that he was going to Belvedere Park. Before
leaving, Ortega left a gun in Mr. Sandoval's car. At about 2:00
a.m. people began to leave for home. Mr. Sandoval agreed to
give Steve Moriel a ride home. Mr. Moriel lived by a Sheriff's
substation. Mr. Sandoval worried that on driving Mr. Moriel
home, he might be stopped by the Deputy Sheriffs and
searched. Since he was on parole and possession of a weapon
would be a parole violation, he decided to return the gun to
Ralph Ortega at Belvedere Park. In the car with Mr. Sandoval
were Steve Moriel, Eugene Valenzuela (also known as
“Pelon”), and a man named Jack.

Mr. Sandoval located Ralph’s car at Belvedere Park and
pulled his own car into a parking stall. He saw Carlos Tostado,
whom he knew, on his knees apparently looking for his car keys
in the grass. He asked about Mr. Ortega's whereabouts.

At this point aman who Mr. Sandoval had not seen before,
came on the scene and demanded that Mr. Sandoval say where
he was from. In context, this was a hostile question calling for
Mr. Sandoval to declare a gang affiliation as a prelude to a
confrontation. Aware that most of the people on the scene had
been taking drugs and drinking, Mr. Sandoval tried to diffuse
what was suddenly becoming a dangerous confrontation.
However, Eugene Valenzuela did not exercise the same
restraint. He responded to the stranger in a similar belligerent
tone. At this point, Mr. Sandoval saw another man who was
accompanying the stranger reach around and under the back
seat of his car. At this moment the man confronting Eugene put
his hand in his front pocket. He and Eugene faced off for a few
seconds swinging at each other. Eugene made a drunken swipe
with his fist and the other man swung his arm with a metal
weapon in his hand. Mr. Sandoval subsequently learned that
the object was a razor sharp box cutter, but at the time did not
know if it was a knife or a gun. A split second later he saw that
his friend was bleeding. At this point Mr. Sandoval, believing
the two strangers were attacking Eugene and him, pulled Mr.
Ortega’s gun out of his pocket and shot the man that had just

203

cut Eugene. He then shot the friend who charged Mr. Sandoval
and finally shot at a third man who was initially charging but
then appeared to go toward his car, in what Mr. Sandoval
believed to be an attempt to get a weapon.

Present in the immediate vicinity and witnesses to the
shootings were Steve Moriel and his two nieces. Mr. Moriel's
nieces were sitting on Carlos Tostado's car parked in the
Belvedere parking lot when Mr. Sandoval, Mr. Moriel and their

_ other companions arrived.

After the shooting, Mr. Sandoval and his friends quickly
left the park. Eugene was bleeding profusely from a fourteen
inch cut on his upper torso. Mr. Sandoval took Eugene to the
home of his friends, David and Helen Carbajal. The Carbajals
helped Mr. Sandoval wash and patch Eugene’s wounds. Mr.
Sandoval then took Eugene home where he was berated by
Eugene’s girlfriend for permitting someone to get so
dangerously close to Eugene and injuring him so seriously.

The next day Mr. Sandoval took Eugene to the home of
another friend, Danny Villar. Villar helped him change
Eugene’s bandages. Later they took Mr. Valenzuela to Benny
Verduzco’s home where Bennie’s mother re-bandaged the
wound and applied antibiotics.

At the time of the shootings, Mr. Sandoval was both drunk
and highly under the influence of cocaine. The alcohol and
drugs exacerbated Mr. Sandoval’s pre-existing neurological
deficits, thus causing the situation in which his self-control was
virtually non-existent. Moreover, during the previous 10 or 15
years both on the streets of East Los Angeles and while
incarcerated he had seen many “kill or be killed” situations
develop in which his friends had been seriously injured or killed
because they failed to prepare and defend themselves quickly
enough. This is the tragic reality of life in the barrio in which
extends into the California Correctional System itself. At the
time Mr. Sandoval pulled Ralph Ortega’s gun from his pocket
and started shooting, he was operating in a blind, instinctual
reaction triggered by seeing the mental weapon slashing at

204

Pelon and feeling that these two strangers were launching a
homicidal attack.

At trial the prosecution presented the testimony of Adela
Rodriguez who explained that on the evening of October 14,
1984, she drove to Belvedere Park with a number of girlfriends
plus Gilbert Martinez and Manuel Torres. Anthony Aceves and
another man accompanied them in a different car. After
arriving at the park, Adela walked off with Gilbert Martinez. A
little later she heard her sister Zebba calling her back to the car
where “there were some guys there fighting.” While she was
getting into the passenger side of the car, Gilbert Martinez said,
“Let me get my friends first.” The next thing she saw was
Gilbert Martinez being shot with a gun about four inches from
his head. She also saw Anthony Aceves being shot in the head.
She identified Mr. Sandoval as the person who shot them. She
also testified that Mr. Sandoval shot at Manuel Torres, who was
running away.

Susan Martinez testified that she drove Adela and the
others to Belvedere Park. She walked around the park with
Anthony Aceves Aceves. She noticed another car in the
parking lot, a white Monte Carlos. Later in the evening she
walked back toward the car with Gilbert Martinez and Adela
close behind. She saw an argument among several men, and
fighting broke out among Carlos Tostado and others. The
fighting apparently stopped and another older brown car pulled
in between her car and Tostado’s white Monte Carlo. She saw
Mr. Sandoval standing outside the car talking with Anthony
Aceves, with Gilbert Martinez nearby. She testified that Mr.
Sandoval pulled out a gun and shot Gilbert Martinez and
Anthony Aceves, then pointed the gun toward her car.

Carlos Tostado testified that he had been in two or three
fights earlier on the evening of October 13 before arriving at
Belvedere Park sometime after 2:00 a.m. on October 14. He
was driving a white Monte Carlo and arrived with some friends,
including David Martinez and some girls. Another car with
four young girls and three men arrived and parked nearby.

205

Carlos got into a fight with one of the men. The fight was
breaking up about the time a tan Monte Carlos drove up and
two people got out, Mr. Sandoval and Eugene Valenzuela.
Carlos testified that Mr. Sandoval grabbed one man by the neck
and shot him after which he grabbed the second man and shot
him as well. According to Tostado, the victims did not show
any weapons or make aggressive gestures. Tostado admitted
that when he initially gave statements to investigating police
officers related a number of different stories about the shooting.
He testified that he changed his testimony because he wanted to
get out of the gang life, explicitly stated that he was testifying
without any promises or benefits other than the court paying for
the accommodation for his wife while he was in Los Angeles
testifying. He admitted that he was on probation for a
conviction relating to PCP use. He also stated that Mr.
Sandoval had once saved his life by taking him to the hospital
after Tostado had been stabbed ten times.

The prosecution read into evidence the Preliminary
Hearing testimony of Manuel Torres, who died prior to trial in
an unrelated automobile accident. Torres testified that he was
at Belvedere Park with Anthony Aceves and Gilbert Martinez
in the early morning hours of October 14. He did not see
Gilbert Martinez being shot but he “saw Anthony go down.”
He heard shots but he “didn’t see who shot him.” Torres was
himself shot in the neck but didn’t see who shot him. Torres
belong to the Marianna Marivilla gang, which was historically
arival of the Arizona Marivilla gang, but they were not “at war”
in 1984. Marianna was then at war with Lote, another barrio
gang.

Testimony of Sheriff's Deputy Woodrow West established
that a pocket knife with blood on it was found near one of the
bodies. West acknowledged that two days after the shooting he
had questioned Carlos Tostado in great detail about the
Belvedere Park shootings. Tostado said nothing about where
people were positioned, who had guns in their hands, and said
nothing about Mr. Sandoval grabbing either of the two victims.

206

Rather, Tostado told West that he, “Just saw the flash of a gun,
did not see the gun itself.” Tostado’s identification of Sandoval
as the shooter was not based on personal observation. Tostado
acknowledged to West that he had been taking PCP on the night
of the shootings and that he was intoxicated. In a subsequent
interview on December 12, Tostado again said that he never
saw Mr. Sandoval grab either of the victims around the head or
shoulders, or put a gun to their heads. Tostado first revealed his
asserted observation that Mr. Sandoval grabbed the two
individuals and shot them just one week before his trial
testimony.

Similarly, when Adela Rodriguez first told her story to
sheriff's deputies on the night of the shooting, her description
was significantly different from her trial testimony. She
initially stated that she saw a fight, that Gilbert Martinez went
over to help Anthony Aceves and she went back to her car
where somebody pulled her in. Both Adela and Susan told
sheriff's deputies that they saw some males fighting, then heard
shots, they ducked down, and did not see the shooting itself.
Similarly, Zebba Rodriguez said that she heard shots, ducked
down, and when she raised her head she saw Gilbert Martinez
and Anthony Aceves lying on the pavement. She could not
identify anyone who might have done the shooting.

Both Gilbert Martinez Martinez and Anthony Aceves had
such high levels of PCP in their blood, that, according to
Pathologist, Dr. Thomas Griffin, they would have experienced
“toxic psychosis” resulting in aggressive or assaultive behavior.
Similarly, Dr. Donald Trockman, a forensic psychiatrist,
testified that persons with the amount of PCP in their system
such as Gilbert Martinez and Anthony Aceves were
“unpredictable people” and that “they may attack you and try to
kill you.”

Completely missing from the guilt phase of trial was any
evidence relating to Mr. Sandoval’s own drug and alcohol use
on the night of the shooting, or any evidence relating to his
diminished capacity or lack of intent, his mental impairments,

a Ls sat a

207

psychological history, history of neurological deficit, history of
chronic drug and alcohol abuse, or any testimony regarding the
manner in which these factors contributed to the Belvedere Park
incident. The jury never heard anything regarding Mr.
Sandoval’s mental state or the impact his brain damage, severe
emotional trauma and intoxication had on the shooting.

Wells Shootings.

Mr. Sandoval took the car he had been driving on the night
of the Belvedere Park shootings to the home of another
neighborhood associate, Benny Verduzco. On October 24,
some ten days after the Belvedere Park shooting, somebody
called the police and told them that the car used in the shootings
was stashed at Verduzco’s house, and the police retrieved it.
On or about October 24, Mr. Sandoval traveled to Tecate,
Mexico, with several friends, including Ralph Ortega. Mr.
Sandoval remained in the Tecate area until December, 1994.
Specifically, Sandoval was present at the ranch on October 31,
Halloween night. Attrial, both Ralph Ortega and his wife, Terri
Ramirez, testified that Mr. Sandoval accompanied them and
their son into Tecate on Halloween night. It was October 31,
1984, at about 12:42 a.m. that Ray Wells and Marlene Wells
were killed in their home on Harland Avenue in Baldwin Park.

At trial, Frank Bender, a neighbor of the Wells, testified
that he heard gun shots at 12:42 a.m. on October 31, after he
had returned home from work and was watching T.V. He
opened the door and looked across the street where he saw a
silhouette crossing the side portion of the Wells yard. The
individual was medium height, medium build, wearing dark
clothing, and with hair combed straight back. He did not
actually see anyone get in or out of a car, but saw a car drive by
his house with the lights on. He did not see how many people
were in the car, but called the police and described as a black
1968 Chevrolet with thin white wall tires. According to
Bender, the Wells had only lived in the house for two months,
and he had seen “a steady stream of older male Mexicans
coming in and out of the house” whom he described as “‘Cholo

208

types.” Mr. Bender called the police and deputy sheriff Robert
Havercroft responded. He found Ray Wells body on a couch
in the living room and Marlene Wells body in the doorway
between the dining room and the kitchen. Ray Wells had two
large caliber gunshot wounds to the nght side of his face and
another gunshot wound to the top portion of his head. Marlene
Wells had two gunshots to the left portion of her head near the
ear.

A subsequent search of the Wells home by sheriff's deputies
revealed a piece of paper with the names “Chato” (Sandoval’s
nickname) and “Pelon” on it. A number of address books were
found in the Wells home. The police found no physical or
forensic evidence that tied Mr. Sandoval to the Wells’ murders.
The only evidence linking Mr. Sandoval to the Wells shootings
came from the testimony of police informant Benny Verduzco.

Verduzco testified that he had known Mr. Sandoval for
about 16 years and previously been a member of the Anzona
Maravilla gang. According to Verduzco, on October 15 or 16,
1984, Sandoval asked him to store a car, a brown Monte Carlo,
in his garage because “he just said he had some kind of
trouble.” Verduzco agreed if he could take the wheels off the
car. Sandoval came over to Verduzco’s house again on October
24, while Ray and Marlene Wells were also there. According
to Verduzco, Mr. Sandoval asked to borrow five dollars ($5)
from Ray Wells, and left. No evidence was presented that Ray
Wells and Mr. Sandoval spoke about the car that Verduzco was
hiding for Mr. Sandoval. There was no testimony that Mr.
Verduzco himself ever told Ray Wells or Marleen Wells that
Mr. Sandoval was hiding his car in his garage. Nor was there
any testimony that Ray Wells knew that Mr. Sandoval had shot
and killed the two men at Belvedere Park. Someone called the
police, but the prosecution made no showing that either Ray
Wells or Marleen Wells made the call, or even that they knew
that Mr. Verduzco was hiding Mr. Sandoval's car. The police
did come on the night of October 24, 1984, to Mr. Verduzco's

209

home and seized Mr. Sandoval's car hidden in Verduzco's
garage. However, there was no information that either Ray
Wells or Marleen Wells called the police, or even that they
knew that Mr. Verduzco was hiding Mr. Sandoval's car.

A week later, on October 31, in the early morning hours,
Verduzco was at home with his wife when the phone rang. The
call came in between one and two in the morning, and Verduzco
identified Mr. Sandoval’s voice, who allegedly said “Bennie I
just did the big mouth in.” Verduzco asked, “Who,” and
Sandoval allegedly said, “Remember the one who was there in
the morning with the car.” He did not use a name, but used the
initial “R.” According to Verduzco, Mr. Sandoval also said,
“You know I take care of business. I had to do her, too.” And,
Verduzco attributed to Sandoval the comment, “They have gone
to heaven with the angels,” and “they wouldn’t be snitching no
more.” Subsequent investigation reveals that Mr. Verduzco's
testimony is perjured.

In the course of post-trial interviews, Mr. Verduzco
admitted the following:

1. Sheriff's Deputy Havercroft, not Verduzco, initiated
the idea of the telephone call that allegedly Verduzco received
from Mr. Sandoval on October 31, 1984, admitting the Wells
shootings. According to Verduzco, Deputy Havercroft kept
asking questions and demanding that he talk about the call. Mr.
Verduzco was suffering from heroine withdrawal and Mr.
Sandoval was in Mexico, so Verduzco “just agreed with what
Havercroft said.” When he agreed, Havercroft let him go
despite the fact that Verduzco had outstanding warrants.

2. While Mr. Verduzco testified at trial that on the
morning of October 24, 1984, Mr. Sandoval came to his house
while Ray Wells and Marlene Wells were there, he signed a
post-trial declaration stating that he believes he appeared at Rio
Hondo Municipal Court that morming. Investigation reveals
that Mr. Verduzco did appear in the Rio Hondo Municipal court
on October 24, 1984, for a felony preliminary hearing. The
court continued the hearing and required a personal waiver of

210

the speedy trial rights. Because the matter was a felony, and
not a misdemeanor, Mr. Verduzco needed to be present, and
needed to personally waive his right to a speedy preliminary
hearing. The magistrate did not issue a warrant for failure to
appear. There is no indication that Mr. Verduzco did not appear
in the mourning, as is the customary hour to call previously set
felony preliminary hearings. Thus, contrary to his trial
testimony, he could not have seen Marlene Wells, Ray Wells,
and Mr. Sandoval on October 24, 1984, between 9:00 a.m. and
10:00 a.m.. This fact is crucial as it destroys the factual
veracity of Mr. Verduzco's testimony.

According to Mr. Verduzco's testimony, during the early
mourning of October 24, 1984, he saw the Wells and Mr.
Sandoval together at his house. That was the same day that the
police came to seize Mr. Sandoval's car from his garage. Thus,
the date is very precise. Yet, this day is the only day, in which
Ray Wells and Marlene Wells are with Mr. Sandoval and Mr.
Verduzco. If as Mr. Verduzco now claims, he was in court the
mourning of October 24, 1984, he could not have seen the
Wells and Mr. Sandoval between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m..
Mr. Sandoval could not have made reference, during his alleged
admission to the killings, to anonexistent event. Further, if Mr.
Sandoval did not see Ray Wells and Marlene Wells on the
mourning of October 24, 1984, at Mr. Verduzco's home, then
consistent with the People's theory there would be no factual
basis to conclude that Ray Wells had "snitched" on Mr.
Sandoval. The prosecution presented no other evidence that
Ray Wells knew that Mr. Sandoval's car was hidden in
Verduzco's garage, or that he knew of the involvement of Mr.
Sandoval's car in the Belvedere murders. The facts do not
support Mr. Verduzco's claim that Mr. Sandoval used the
telephone to tell him during the early mourning hours of
October 31, 1984, that he had killed "R" and explained whom
he meant by saying further “[r]emember the one who was there
in the morning with the car.”” Without the alleged meeting, this
alleged admission has no meaning, and its veracity is in great

pee

211

doubt.

3. Benny Verduzco also stated in the post-trial
declaration that his girlfriend at the time, Jackie Meadows,
answered the telephone on October 31, 1984, when Mr.
Sandoval supposedly called, and could testify that they received
no call from Mr. Sandoval. He has alluded to a State habeas
investigator that she could help prove that he did not recieve a
phone call from Mr. Sandoval. He now admits he was under
the influence of heroin and that they had "just shot up." He
states that he only "assumed" it was Mr. Sandoval. There is
obviously a big difference between knowing the caller is Mr.
Sandoval and assuming it was him. :

4. The record, taken as whole, shows that the story
Benny Verduzco tells about the telephone call allegedly
received from Mr. Sandoval depends upon who he is talking to.
He has, at various times, denied that the telephone call took
place at all, acknowledged a telephone call but seems to
indicate that it was initiated by law enforcement, not Mr.
Sandoval, that he received a call but it wasn't from him, and,
when interviewed by law enforcement, denies fabricating his
testimony about the incriminating telephone call. As will be
described more fully below, because Petitioner’s sentence of
death depends almost exclusively on the truthfulness of Benny
Verduzco’s testimony about the telephone call, all the facts and

circumstances bearing on the reliability of Mr. Verduzco’s trial
testimony must be fully explored in the instant proceeding.

5. When Verduzco was rousted by police on the
morning of November 1, and told that the Wells’ were dead,
Verduzco appeared genuinely surprised and shocked according
to the interrogating officer. Verduzco said nothing to police
about any telephone call until weeks later after he had been
taken into custody on November 27. Attrial, Verduzco testified
that he “decided to testify in this case because | fear for my life”
implying that he was in danger from Mr. Sandoval. He stated
that the only benefits that he received in return for his testimony
were the release from multiple concurrent state prison sentences

212

several months early and he was being given “room and board”
in the amount of $600.00 a month until he got a job. He denied
any other motive or bias against the petitioner or in favor of the
prosecution. In fact, Verduzco was the recipient of a number of
undisclosed benefits provided by law enforcement, including
the following:
(1) When the police returned to Verduzco’s home 2
couple of days after seizing Mr. Sandoval’s brown
Monte Carlo from Verduzco’s garage, they found in
the garage a white vehicle, recently stolen. Rather
than arrest Verduzco for receiving stolen property or
car theft, the police simply drove the stolen car out of
Verduzco’s garage and parked it around the corner,
buying some good will for Verduzco’s cooperation in
the far more important homicide investigation.
(2) OnNovember 27, 1984, Verduzco was subjected
to an interrogation by the police in which he was told
that they knew he had stolen most of the vehicles
found at Ray Wells’ house and that his sales of stolen
cars to Wells could be-prosecuted, and possibly
implicate him in the Wells’ murders. Verduzco, then
suffering from heroin withdrawal and the threat of
criminal prosecution, including a murder indictment, -
acquiesced to a story about a telephone call from
Sandoval which was initiated by sheriff's deputies.
(3) Thereafter, police repeatedly threatened
Verduzco and his common-law wife with arrest
unless he cooperated with law enforcement.
(4) Attrial, although Verduzco testified that he had
not been in trouble in any of his other cases on
November 27, 1984, implying that law enforcement
had iiot particular leverage over him, the truth was
that there was an outstanding bench warrant for him
issued on November 21 for his failure to appear in
court regarding a September 21 arrest for possession
of heroin. Despite the existence of the warrant,

213

Verduzco was released upon giving the police the
information they wanted about the Wells’ shootings.
What is more important, the prosecution did not
disclose the true facts regarding the outstanding
warrant, nor did it correct Mr. Verduzco's obvious lie.
(5) Verduzco was arrested on March 27, 1985,
released on April 2; arrested later on April 2, 1985,
released on April 3; arrested on April 4, 1985; and
released. Thus he was subjected to painful heroin
withdrawal during the time in which he was refusing
to testify for the prosecution at the Sandoval
Preliminary Hearing.

(6) Verduzco had at least four pending felonies in
Los Angeles County, and was attempting through his
attorneys in those cases to work out a favorable plea
bargain. However, in retaliation for his refusal to
testify against Sandoval, the Deputy District Attorney
personally appeared at a sentencing proceeding and
convinced the sentencing court to discard a
contemplated County Jail disposition and imposed.a
state prison sentence instead. In September, 1985,
Verduzco was sentenced to State Prison on four
: pending felonies.

; (7) Toward the end of 1985 the deputy district
attorney assigned to the case began calling the prison
facility where Verduzco was incarcerated leaving
messages for Verduzco to call him back. This round
of communications from the prosecutor’s office
caused Verduzco great concern about being branded
as an informer within the prison system.

(8) The district attorney obtained a removal order to
get Verduzco brought to Los Angeles County Jail
where he arranged with the Sheriffs Department to
have Verduzco housed in the hospital facility,
stigmatized as a place of protective custody for
inmates who were cooperating witnesses. After

214

Verduzco had been in County Jail long enough to be
identified as an informer because of where he was
housed, the deputy district attorney told him that
unless he testified he would never go back to prison
but would be put on the main line of County Jail, that
was tantamount to a death sentence for someone who
had been stigmatized as an informer. Subjected to
this lethal pressure, Verduzco finally relented and
agree to testify. Thereafter, the district attorney’s
office arranged to have Verduzco’s sentence recalled
from the Department of Corrections and on
November 1, 1986, he was released with a promise
that his sentences would be commuted to time served,
after his testimony.

(9) Moreover, Verduzco obtained a $1,500.00 cash
payment from the witness protection fund on the date
of his release. This cash payment was undisclosed to
the defense or the jury.

(10) From November 1, 1986, through the time of his
testimony, Verduzco supported himself by stealing,
and was picked up on multiple occasions by East Los
Angeles Sheriff's Deputies. He obtained his release
without arrest each time by asking the arresting or
detaining an officer to call Sheriffs, Detectives West,
or Travis to confirm that he was a prosecution
witness in a death penalty case. Verduzco was never
arrested or prosecuted for these many offenses.

(11) On February 27, 1987, after the guilt verdicts
had been returned but before the penalty trial,
Verduzco committed another burglary in East Los
Angeles and was caught by the homeowner, from
whom Verduzco managed to escape. On March 2,
the homeowner made a positive identification of
Verduzco from a photo lineup. Police did not arrest
him on this charge for more than a month, after the
penalty trial had been completed and the death verdict

returned. The prosecution failed to disclose
Verduzco’s mid trial offense to defense counsel.
(12) Not only did the prosecution fail to disclose the
“carrot and stick” approach taken with respect to
Verduzco, but it is apparent from post-trial interviews
with this witness that he is willing to say anything te
anyone if he perceives a benefit to be derived
therefrom. Thus, in post trial interviews, Mr.
Verduzco has admitted his testimony to be untruthful
in the following respects:
(a) On October 24, 1984, he had a court
appearance in Rio Hondo Municipal Court.
Although he does not recall if he wenit to that
court appearance he believes that he did go in
the mourning. Subsequent investigation reveals
that as to Case No. A532809, he did appear at
the Rio Hondo Municipal Court on October 24,
1984. The District Attorney's had charged him
with a felony and he was thus entitled to a
preliminary hearing within ten days, unless he
personally waived his statutory right to a speedy
preliminary hearing. In this case he did waive
his statutory right to a speedy preliminary
hearing and agreed to the date of November 21,
1984, plus thirty days thereafter to start his
hearing. Had Mr. Verduzco not appeared, the
court would have issued a bench warrant, and
time could not have been waived.
(b) Although he testified that Ray Wells and
Marleen Wells and Mr. Sandoval were at his
house on October 24, 1984, he does not recall
that they came over on that date. It was unlikely
that they came over that morning since he was in
court.
(c) When he got out of prison, he did not
. relocate but went to live with his sister Lea in

216

Glendale. He also “hung around" in the
neighborhood, down on Arizona Street in East
Los Angeles and El Monte. He never relocated
from the Los Angeles area. He never changed
his name. He was never part of any witness
protection program. He did not look fir a job
when he got out of custody. He just lived with
his sister in Glendale. She iet him live there for
free. She even lent Mr. Verduzco a few dollars
every now and then.

(d) The police gave Mr. Verduzco money to
testify. He received cash from them. He never
gave his sister Lea the money. He used the
money for car payments and for clothes.

(e) In December of 1986, before Mr. Verduzco
testified, the prosecutor David Milton, Travis
and West made he went to Mr. Milton's office.
Mr. Milton tried to get Mr. Verduzco to testify
about the Belvedere Park shootings. He told
him to "talk about what you heard on Kern

Street." He wanted Mr. Verduzco to say that he

was on Kern Street before the shootings at
Belvedere Park and heard Chato planning to kill
the two men who were shot in Belvedere Park.
However, Mr. Verduzco told him that he did not
know anything about Belvedere Park."

(f) Mr. Verduzco was very nervous before he
testified. He could not sleep for several nights
before testifying and got sick to my stomach.
He took some codeine pills before he testified.

Contrary to his trial testimony he did not know
anything about something being said in East Los
Angeles on the Belvedere Park shootings.

(g) Mr. Verduzco lied when he testified that he
did not have a business relation with Ray Wells.
He had done a lot of business with Mr. Wells.

RS NIA EP OI ASIEN S82, se a
fin gh .

3
¥
ae

The police officers who questioned him knew
that Mr. Verduzco had sold stolen cars to Mr.
Ray Wells. Mr. Verduzco believes this because
the Sheriffs Deputies told him that they could
prove that he had stolen the cars found at Mr.
Wells' home. Yet, the prosecution never
corrected his testimony regarding his
relationship with Mr. Wells.

(h) Mr. Verduzco lied when-he testified that
Mr. Sandoval had called him and asked him to
go to Mexico with him. One of Mr. Sandoval's
friends in a red pickup truck asked Mr.
Verduzco to go stay with Mr. Sandoval in
Mexico.

(i) Mr. Verduzco lied when he testified-that he
was not in trouble with any case on November
27, 1984 when he was questioned by police. He
knew that he had outstanding warrants under his
own name and under his brother's name. He
also knew that there were warrants under his
alias "Eugene Ruiz" at that time. Mr. Verduzco
also knew that detectives Travis and West could
arrest him at any time concerning the stolen
white Chevrolet they found in his garage.

(j) Mr. Verduzco lied when he testified that he
did not recognize an exhibit with Eugene
Valenzuela's ("Pelon's") and Mr. Sandoval's
names and telephone number on it. He knew
whose writing it was. The writing was that of
Eugene Valenzuela. Eugene Valenzuela is a
friend of Mr. Verduzco, and he recognized Mr.
Valenzuela's handwriting.

(k) Mr. Verduzco lied when he testified that he
did not recognize an exhibit with Ray Wells
handwriting which had written on it "Mosses
Verduzco" and Gonzales and Gonzales East 3rd

218

L.A." Ray Wells wrote it down when Mr.
Verduzco called him and asked him to get him
bail. Although Mr. Verduzco remembered the
meaning of the writings on the paper, he lied
about it at trial.
(1) Mr. Verduzco lied when he testified that
the only thing he was getting for his testimony
was one year early release. He also lied when he
testified that he volunteered to cooperate with
the police in November 1984 and in early 1986.
He knew that the police could have charged him
with stealing the white Chevrolet they found at
his home; and that they could have charged him
with stealing as many as six (6) cars that they .
found at Ray Wells home. Mr. Verduzco also
knew that the police and the district attorney had
harassed him with petty arrests when he refused
to testify, and prevented him from getting the
benefit of his plea bargains. Mr. Verduzco also .
knew that the real reason that he had agreed to i:
testify in March 1986 was because the police |
threatened to have him killed by putting him in
the Los Angeles County Jail without protective ©
custody after they made him look like an |
informant. The police knew about the stolen i
cars. The police knew what would happen if |
they housed him in the snitch tank. And the |
police knew that Mr. Verduzco was in fear of his
life because they were threatening to keep him
in the county jail on the mainline. :
The prosecution (including the investigating officers) did
not do anything to correct his testimony that they knew to be
untruthful.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Pretrial Matters.
On July 8, 1985, Petitioner was arraigned on information

219

No. A70386 in Los Angeles County Superior Court charging
him with two counts of murder and a single count of attempted
murder occurring on October 13, 1984, and two additional
counts of murder occurring on October 31, 1984. A number of
pretrial motions were heard, including a motion to sever the
October 13 counts from the October 31 counts, which was
denied on December 9, 1985. On February 18, 1986, the
information was amended to allege a prior conviction, and a
renewed motion to sever was denied. A third motion to sever
the two sets of counts was heard and denied on September 23,
1986.

Petitioner recognized that his trial attorneys were not

properly investigating this case. Based on that belief he filed a

motion to have them relieved as trial counsel requesting the
right to proceed pro se. However, the Superior Court never
conducted a meaningful hearing on the matter. The judge ~
instead deferred the decision until the next court date.
However, the district attorney filed a motion pursuant to Civil
Code § 170.6 to have the judge removed. At the next court
hearing, outside the presence of Mr. Sandoval, and without his
consent, his attorneys effectively withdrew the motion to have
themselves relieved in exchange for law library privileges.
Petitioner assumed based on what he had been told by his
appointed counsel that the court had heard his motion and
denied it on the merits. He never-raised the issue again,
believing that this was a final decision.

B. Guilt Phase of Trial.

Jury selection began on October 28, 1986, and the jury was
sworn on November 25, 1986. The prosecution began its case
on December 3 and rested on December 22. The defense case
concluded on January 20, 1987, and all parties rested on
January 26.

Prosecution evidence regarding the Belvedere Park
shootings included the testimony of Adela Rodriguez and Susan
Martinez, each of whom testified that they observed Petitioner
shoot Anthony Aceves and Gilbert Martinez. Carlos Tostado

220

testified that he had been in two or three fights earlier in the
evening. Although he acknowledged telling the police a
number of different stories about what occurred, he testified that
Petitioner grabbed one of the victims by the neck and shot him
after which he grabbed the second man and shot him as well.
The three witnesses gave conflicting versions of what occurred.
Both victims had substantial amounts of PCP in their blood and
small knife was found near one of the bodies. :

With respect to the Wells shootings, Frank Bender, a
neighbor of the Wells on Harland Avenue in Baldwin Park,
testified that he heard gunshots at 12:41 a.m. on October 31.
He opened the door and looked across the street where he saw
a silhouette crossing the side portion of the Wells yard, medium
height, medium build, wearing dark clothing and with hair
combed straight back. He did not see anyone get in or out of a
car but saw a car drive by his house with the lights on. He
described the car as a black 1968 Chevrolet.

Benny Verduzco, the principal prosecution witness on the
Wells counts, testified that Petitioner asked him to keep a car in
his garage. Mr. Sandoval purportedly said that he wanted to
store the car, a brown Monte Carlo because “he had some kind
of trouble.” Petitioner came to Verduzco’s house again around
October 24, while Ray and Marlene Wells were also there. He
asked to borrow $5.00 from Ray Wells, and left. The police
came to Verduzco’s house that night and took Petitioner’s car
from the garage.

A week later on October 31, between 1:00 and 2:00 in the
morning Verduzco received a telephone call. He identified
Petitioner’s voice who purportedly said “Benny, I just did the
big mouth in.” Verduzco asked “Who,” and the person on the
other line purportedly responded, “Remember the one who was
there in the morning with the car.” Verduzco also testified that
Petitioner said, “You know I take care of business. I had to do
her, too.” Petitioner also commented, “They have gone to
heaven with the angel” and “they wouldn’t be snitching no
more.”

—- —e

pom ne

ps
'
is

Ralph Ortega testified for the defense that he went to a
ranch in Tecate, Mexico with several people, including
Petitioner, on October 24, 1984. He specifically remembered
that Petitioner was still at the ranch on October 31, because he
took his son to the nearby town of Tecate for Halloween
activities. Ortega’s common-law wife, Terry Ramirez,
confirmed that she arrived at the ranch on the evening of
October 30, that Petitioner was there then, and that he
accompanied her and Ortega into Tecate on Halloween.

C. Penalty Phase of the Trial.

The penalty phase case in aggravation consisted of
evidence regarding three prior crimes by Petitioner including an
incident in 1978 in which petitioner waved a rifle or shotgun at
police, a 1979 shooting of a rival gang member named Ernest
Leos, Jr., and a 1985 fight in Los Angeles County Jail with
inmate Guy Walker.

The evidence in mitigation consisted primarily of
testimony regarding Petitioner’s dysfunctional family life and
the barrio influences during his childhood. Petitioner’s mother,
Elizabeth Luna, his brother, Robert Sandoval, sister, Betty
Martin, his wife, Michelle Trujillo Sandoval, and his son, Ernie
Sandoval, eight years old at the time, all testified about the
difficulty of his upbringing and the positive influences
Petitioner had on his siblings and child, despite the extremely
difficult conditions under which they lived. Sheriff Deputies,
Ronald Hernandez and Anthony Campbell, who had observed
Petitioner’s in custody behavior, t

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386014_1864%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.