Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 CLIFF GARDNER, SBN 93782
LUZ C. VALVERDE, SBN 256127
2 Law Offices of Cliff Gardner
1448 San Pablo Ave.
3 Berkeley, CA 94702
Telephone: (510) 524-1093
4 casetris@aol.com
5 EDWARD W. SWANSON, SBN 159859
Swanson & Mcnamara LLP
6 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, California 94104
7 Telephone: (415) 477-3800
Facsimile: (415) 477-9010
8 eswanson@swansonmcnamara.com
9 Attorneys for Petitioner
Anand Jon Alexander
10
11
12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY
14
15 IN RE ANAND JON ALEXANDER, ) BA327190
)
16 On Habeas Corpus. )
)
17 )
_______________________________________)
18
19
20
21 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
22 AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
23
24
25
26
27
28
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS. ................................................ 5
5
A. Introduction... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5
6
B. Evidence The Jury Heard.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
7
1. The section 1108 witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
8
a. Tara S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
9
b. Kristi W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
11
10
c. Katie S.. ........................................ 13
11
2. The complaining witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
12
a. Jessie B. ........................................ 14
13
b. Amanda C... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
14
c. Katie S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
15
d. Nicole G.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
16
e. Autumn A. ...................................... 26
17
f. Stacey F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
29
18
g. Eve M. ......................................... 30
19
h. Britny O.. ....................................... 32
20
i. Candace M.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
21
C. Evidence The Jury Never Heard. ................................ 36
22
1. The section 1108 witnesses. .............................. 36
23
a. Tara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
36
24
b. Kristi. .......................................... 38
25
c. Katie.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
26
2. The complaining witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
27
28
i
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 a. Jessie... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
43
2 (1) Eyewitness testimony which would have
impeached Jessie. ........................... 43
3
(2) Documentary evidence which would have
4 supported the defense theory as to Jessie. . . . . . . . . . 47
5 b. Amanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
54
6 c. Katie S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
55
7 d. Nicole G.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
56
8 ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
9 I. DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE
SUPPORTING THE VERY THEORY COUNSEL ELECTED TO ARGUE
10 VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
OF COUNSEL AND REQUIRES RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
11
A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
58
12
B. The Relevant Facts. .......................................... 59
13
1. The section 1108 witnesses. .............................. 59
14
2. The complaining witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66
15
C. Defense Counsel’s Failure To Present Testimony Which Would
16 Have Directly Supported The Defense Selected Or Object To
Inadmissible Evidence Fell Below An Objective Standard Of Care.. .... 70
17
1. The failure to impeach Tara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
71
18
2. The failure to impeach Kristi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
75
19
3. The failure to impeach Jessie or support the defense theory
20 promised in opening and closing argument. .................. 76
21 4. The failure to object to Dr. Schulman’s testimony, and
introduction of Nurse Lawson’s report.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
22
5. The failure to impeach Amanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
23
6. The failure to impeach Katie. ............................. 81
24
7. The failure to impeach Nicole. ............................ 82
25
8. Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
83
26
D. Taken Together, Trial Counsel’s Errors Undermine Confidence In The
27 Outcome Of Trial And Require That The Writ Be Granted. ........... 85
28
ii
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 II. THE PROSECUTOR’S PRESENTATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND
ARGUMENT ABOUT TARA REQUIRES THAT RELIEF BE GRANTED. .. 91
2
A. The Relevant Facts. .......................................... 91
3
B. The Presentation Of False Evidence Which Directly Supported The
4 State’s Theory Of The Case, And Just As Directly Undercut The
Defense Theory, Requires Relief Under Either Federal Or State Law.. . . 94
5
III. THE STATE’S DECISION TO “ROLL THE DICE” AND CALL BOTH
6 TARA AND KRISTI IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF -- KNOWING THAT
DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD NOT IMPEACH EITHER OF THEM
7 WITH THEIR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY -- VIOLATED
PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
8 COUNSEL AND REQUIRES THAT THE WRIT BE GRANTED. .......... 99
9 A. Permitting The Prosecution To Call Both Tara And Kristi
Violated Petitioner’s Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel. .... 100
10
B. The State-Induced Deprivation Of Counsel Requires Reversal. ....... 104
11
IV. APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE
12 OF COUNSEL IN FAILING TO ARGUE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE OF DURESS TO SUSTAIN THE COUNT 10 CHARGE OR
13 CHALLENGE THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING THAT NICOLE’S
HISTORY AS A STRIPPER WOULD BE KEPT FROM THE JURY.. ...... 111
14
A. Introduction... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111
15
B. These Claims Are Properly Before The Court.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
16
C. There Was Insufficient Evidence To Sustain The Force Element Of
17 The Count Ten Charge.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
114
18 D. The Trial Court Improperly Excluded Evidence That Would Have
Directly Impeached Nicole’s Testimony.. ........................ 118
19
V. BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED AN UNAUTHORIZED
20 SENTENCE, THE WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED AND THE CASE
REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
21
A. The Improper Four Year Consecutive Term For Count Eight. ........ 122
22
B. The Trial Court’s Imposition Of Consecutive Terms On
23 Counts 11 And 12.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
124
24 VI. EVEN IF NONE OF THE ERRORS IDENTIFIED ABOVE REQUIRES
REVERSAL WHEN CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, CONSIDERED
25 TOGETHER THESE ERRORS DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A
FAIR TRIAL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
127
26
27
28
iii
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 VII. DISCOVERY IS APPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE IF THE
PROSECUTION SUPPRESSED MATERIAL EVIDENCE BY FAILING
2 TO DISCLOSE (1) INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK
BETWEEN POLICE AND NUMEROUS WITNESSES THE
3 PROSECUTION CALLED AT TRIAL AND (2) A PENDING CRIMINAL
CHARGE OF COMPLAINING WITNESS NICOLE G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4
A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
128
5
B. Because New York And California Investigators Were Jointly
6 Investigating Petitioner, Working Closely Together And Sharing
Resources, California Authorities Were Not Entitled To Suppress
7 Favorable Material Evidence In The New York Reports And
Discovery Of Those Reports Is Now Proper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
8
C. Discovery Is Appropriate In Order To Determine If Nicole Had
9 Criminal Charges Pending Against Her When She Reported
Petitioner’s Conduct To Police And Testified Against Him. . . . . . . . . . . 134
10
VIII. BECAUSE JUROR DYMALLY SPOKE WITH A NON-JUROR ABOUT
11 THIS CASE AND RESEARCHED THE CASE ON THE INTERNET, A
PRESUMPTION OF PREJUDICE ARISES AND RELIEF MUST BE
12 GRANTED UNLESS THE STATE CAN PROVE THE MISCONDUCT
HARMLESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
136
13
IX. THE DECEMBER 18, 2013 PETITION WAS TIMELY FILED. . . . . . . . . . . . 139
14
A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
139
15
B. Facts Relevant To The Question Of Timeliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
16
C. The Petition Was Timely Because There Was No Substantial Delay
17 Attributable To Petitioner And It Was Filed Within Five Months
Of The Discovery Of Triggering Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
18
D. Taken Together, The Substantive Claims In The Petition Show
19 That Petitioner Received An Unfair Trial And That He May Be
Actually Innocent Of The Charges. ............................. 146
20
CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
147
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
iv
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 FEDERAL CASES
3
4 Alcorta v. Texas (1957) 355 U.S. 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
6 Bell v. Cone (2002) 535 U.S. 685. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 107, 108
7 Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 134
8 Bragg v. Galaza (9th Cir. 2001) 242 F.3d 1082. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
9 Brooks v. Tennessee (1972) 406 U.S.605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 107
10 Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2705. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
11 Chambers v. Armontiout (8th Cir. 1990) 907 F.2d 825.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
12 Clinksdale v. Carter (6th Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 430-435. .... 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 81
13 Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36. ........................... 78
14 Crutchfield v. Wainwright (11th Cir. 1986) 803 F.2d 1103. ............... 108
15 Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308. ................................ 107
16 Douglas v. California (1963) 372 U.S. 353. ........................... 113
17 Dugas v. Coplan (1st Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 317. . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 81
18 Eve v. Senkowski (2nd Cir. 2003) 321 F.3d 110. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
19 Evitts v. Lucey (1985) 469 U.S. 387. ................................. 113
20 Ferguson v. Georgia (1961) 365 U.S. 570. ............................ 107
21 Franklin v. Johnson (9th Cir. 2002) 290 F.3d 1223. ...................... 71
22 Geders v. United States (1976) 425 U.S. 80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 107
23 Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
24 Hall v. Director of Corrections (9th Cir. 2003) 343 F.3d 976. .............. 95
25 Harris v. Reed (7th Cir. 1990) 894 F.2d 871.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
26 Harris v. Wood (9th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 1432. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
27 Hart v. Gomez (9th Cir. 1999) 174 F.3d 1067.. . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 81
28 Herring v. New York (1975) 422 U.S. 853. ........................ 102, 106
v
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 Higgins v. Renico (6th Cir. 2006) 470 F.3d 624. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
2 Hintz v. Beto (5th Cir. 1967) 379 F.2d 937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
3 Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307. ............................. 115
4 Kleba v. Williams (7th Cir. 1986) 796 F.2d 947. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5 Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419. ........................... 128, 133
6 Maxwell v. Roe (9th Cir. 2010) 628 F.3d 486. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
8 Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
96
9 Moon v. Head (11th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 1301. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
10 Murray v. Carrier (1986) 477 U.S. 478. .............................. 113
11 Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 96
12 Nunes v. Mueller (9th Cir. 2003) 350 F.3d 1045.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
13 Pavel v. Hollins (2nd Cir. 2001) 261 F.3d 210. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
14 Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
15 Pham v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2004) 400 F.3d 740.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133, 135
16 Sheppard v. Rees (9th Cir. 1989) 909 F.2d 1234. ....................... 102
17 Soffar v. Dretke (5th Cir. 2004) 368 F.3d 441.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
18 Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668. . . . . . . . . . 70, 71, 85, 89, 102, 105,
106, 107
19 Thomas v. Hubbard (9th Cir. 2001) 273 F.3d 1164. ..................... 127
20 United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 95
21 United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667. .......................... 133
22 United States v. Gaskins (9th Cir. 1988) 849 F.2d 454.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
23 United States v. Gouveia (1984) 467 U.S. 180. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
24 United States v. Harvill (9th Cir. 1974) 501 F.2d 295. ................... 102
25 United States v. Kojoyan (9th Cir. 1996) 8 F.3d 1315. .................... 86
26 United States v. Young (9th Cir. 1994) 17 F.3d 1201. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
27 Washington v. Texas (1967) 388 U.S. 14. ......................... 107, 119
28 Welch v. Simmons (10th Cir. 2006) 451 F.3d 675.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
vi
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 Wiggins v. Smith (2003) 539 U.S. 510. ................. 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 81,
89
2 Williams v. Taylor (2000) 529 U.S. 362. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3 In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4 Wright v. United States (9th Cir. 1964) 339 F.2d 578.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
5
6 STATE CASES
7
Barnett v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 890. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
8
Commonwealth v. Segovia (Mass. 2001) 757 N.E.2d 752. ................. 84
9
In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
10
In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140, 146
11
In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 112
12
In re Ferguson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 525. .................................. 95
13
In re Gay (1998) 19 Cal.4th 771. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
88
14
In re Hamilton (1999) 20 Cal.4th 273 . ............................... 137
15
In re Huddleston (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1031.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
16
In re Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
132
17
In re McGrew (1967) 66 Cal.2d 685. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
18
In re Merkle (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 46. ............................... 95
19
In re Mitchell (1968) 68 Cal.2d 258. ................................. 137
20
In re Pedro T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1041. ................................ 136
21
In re Perez (1966) 65 Cal.2d 224. ................................... 137
22
In re Ring (1966) 64 Cal.2d 450. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
112
23
In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139, 140, 144
24
In re Sanders (1999) 21 Cal.4th 697. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140, 143
25
In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783. ................................... 134
26
In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391. ............................... 137
27
In re Wright (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 788. ............................... 95
28
vii
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 People v. Asbury (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 362.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
2 People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3 People v. Bowers (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 722. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4 People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
5 People v. Campbell (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 252.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
6 People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897. ............................. 89
7 People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344. ................. 65, 129, 130, 131
8 People v. Claxton (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 638. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
9 People v. Coyer (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 839. .......................... 134
10 People v. Cruz (1964) 61 Cal.2d 861. ................................. 86
11 People v. Danks (2004) 32 Cal.4th 269 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
12 People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
13 People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287. ....................... 116
14 People v. Hecker (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1238.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
15 People v. Howard (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
16 People v. Lanfrey (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 491. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
17 People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4th 999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 117
18 People v. Martinez (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1071.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
19 People v. McShann (1958) 50 Cal.2d 802.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
20 People v. Mitchell (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 132. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
21 People v. Moore (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
22 People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
23 People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
24 People v. Powell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 32.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
25 People v. Robbins (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 261. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
26 People v. Roberts (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1106.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
27 People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
28
viii
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 People v. Sassounian (1988) 9 Cal.4th 535.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
2 People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598. ............................... 94
3 People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
4 People v. Soojian (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 491.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 121
5 People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
6 People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7 People v. Tripp (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 951. .......................... 115
8 People v. Valenzuela (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 381. ...................... 113
9 People v. Vierra (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264. .............................. 139
10 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. ............................... 84
11 People v. Wilkerson (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1571.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
12 Walker v. Martin (2010) 2010 WL 4818791 at 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
140
13
14 DOCKETED CASES
15 People v. Alexander, New York Case No. 0081/2008. ................... 131
16 People v. Alexander, New York Case No. 6042/07. ...................... 74
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ix
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 INTRODUCTION
2
3 A grand jury indicted petitioner on 59 counts of sexual misconduct involving 19
4 separate victims. From day one there were credibility problems with the state’s case --
5 prior to trial the state dismissed more than half the counts involving more than half the
6 originally named victims. This case, it would turn out, was not about forensic evidence, it
7 was about credibility and corroboration.
8
9 As discussed in the Statement of Facts below, each of the 9 complaining witnesses
10 that remained had credibility issues. To buttress the credibility of its entire case, shortly
11 before trial the state named (and ultimately called) eight section 1108 witnesses to testify
12 about acts of sexual misconduct against petitioner for which he had never been tried,
13 many of which were alleged to have occurred years earlier. Several of these section 1108
14 witnesses were particularly important because they accused petitioner of forcible sex
15 offenses just like the forcible offenses charged in counts 9, 10 and 33 of the California
16 indictment. The prosecutor would tell jurors repeatedly that they could rely on these
17 section 1108 witnesses to corroborate the complaining witnesses.
18
19 Ultimately, it is fair to say the jury reached something of a split decision as to the
20 credibility of the state’s case, although it was a decision that certainly tilted in the state’s
21 favor. The jury resolved credibility against the state as to 2 complaining witnesses
22 (involving 6 counts) and in the state’s favor on 7 complaining witnesses (involving 18
23 counts).
24
25 But as discussed more fully below, the jury charged with assessing the credibility
26 of the state’s key witnesses did not hear the full story. It turns out there was a wealth of
27 readily available impeachment evidence the jury never heard. The evidence impeaches,
28 and in some cases utterly destroys, the state’s key section 1108 witnesses -- that is, those
1
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 corroborating section 1108 witnesses who testified to prior violent sexual acts like the
2 forcible sexual acts alleged in counts 9, 10 and 33. The evidence also impeaches the
3 complaining witnesses as well. The evidence consists of photographs never shown to the
4 jury. It consists of recorded videotape footage never shown to the jury. It consists of
5 instant message chats with purported victims, never shown to the jury. It consists of prior
6 sworn grand jury testimony of several witnesses, never shown to the jury. It consists of
7 numerous eyewitnesses never presented to the jury.
8
9 Given the nature of an adversary system, petitioner fully expects the state to fight
10 tooth and nail on this case. That may well be how the system is supposed to work. But at
11 the end of the day, given the array of evidence never presented in this case there should
12 be no genuine dispute not only that the state presented (and relied on) utterly false
13 testimony in seeking to convict petitioner, but the jury resolving the credibility questions
14 at the heart of this case simply did not hear the full story. In light of all the errors which
15 occurred in this case, and considering the evidence which was not presented, petitioner’s
16 trial was simply not fair. Relief is required.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022
1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2
3 On October 4, 2007, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a 59-count
4 amended indictment against defendant Anand Jon Alexander. The indictment alleged 59
5 acts of sexual misconduct with 19 separate victims. Prior to trial, however, the state
6 dismissed 34 counts involving 10 alleged victims. (2 CT 374-375.) This left an
7 indictment containing 25 counts with nine victims. The charges which were not
8 dismissed were as follows:
9
10 1) Counts 3-6 of the indictment involved Autumn A. Counts 3, 4 and 5
alleged lewd acts in violation of Penal Code section 288(c)(1). (1
11 CT 28-29.) Count 6 alleged contributing to the delinquency of a
minor in violation of section 272(a)(1). (1 CT 29.)
12
2) Counts 7-9 involved Jessie B. Count 7 alleged a sexual battery,
13 count 8 alleged an attempted forcible oral copulation and count 9
alleged a rape in violation of sections 243.4, 288a(c)(2) and
14 261(a)(2) respectively. (1 CT 30-31.)
15 3) Counts 10-12 involved Amanda C. Count 10 alleged sexual
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 CLIFF GARDNER, SBN 93782 LUZ C. VALVERDE, SBN 256127 2 Law Offices of Cliff Gardner 1448 San Pablo Ave. 3 Berkeley, CA 94702 Telephone: (510) 524-1093 4 casetris@aol.com 5 EDWARD W. SWANSON, SBN 159859 Swanson & Mcnamara LLP 6 300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, California 94104 7 Telephone: (415) 477-3800 Facsimile: (415) 477-9010 8 eswanson@swansonmcnamara.com 9 Attorneys for Petitioner Anand Jon Alexander 10 11 12 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 IN AND FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY 14 15 IN RE ANAND JON ALEXANDER, ) BA327190 ) 16 On Habeas Corpus. ) ) 17 ) _______________________________________) 18 19 20 21 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF 22 AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 23 24 25 26 27 28 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS. ................................................ 5 5 A. Introduction... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 B. Evidence The Jury Heard.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 7 1. The section 1108 witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 a. Tara S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9 b. Kristi W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 c. Katie S.. ........................................ 13 11 2. The complaining witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14 12 a. Jessie B. ........................................ 14 13 b. Amanda C... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 14 c. Katie S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 15 d. Nicole G.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 16 e. Autumn A. ...................................... 26 17 f. Stacey F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 18 g. Eve M. ......................................... 30 19 h. Britny O.. ....................................... 32 20 i. Candace M.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 21 C. Evidence The Jury Never Heard. ................................ 36 22 1. The section 1108 witnesses. .............................. 36 23 a. Tara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 24 b. Kristi. .......................................... 38 25 c. Katie.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 26 2. The complaining witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 27 28 i FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 a. Jessie... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 2 (1) Eyewitness testimony which would have impeached Jessie. ........................... 43 3 (2) Documentary evidence which would have 4 supported the defense theory as to Jessie. . . . . . . . . . 47 5 b. Amanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 6 c. Katie S. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 7 d. Nicole G.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 8 ARGUMENT.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 9 I. DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO PRESENT EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE VERY THEORY COUNSEL ELECTED TO ARGUE 10 VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL AND REQUIRES RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 11 A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 12 B. The Relevant Facts. .......................................... 59 13 1. The section 1108 witnesses. .............................. 59 14 2. The complaining witnesses.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 15 C. Defense Counsel’s Failure To Present Testimony Which Would 16 Have Directly Supported The Defense Selected Or Object To Inadmissible Evidence Fell Below An Objective Standard Of Care.. .... 70 17 1. The failure to impeach Tara. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 18 2. The failure to impeach Kristi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 19 3. The failure to impeach Jessie or support the defense theory 20 promised in opening and closing argument. .................. 76 21 4. The failure to object to Dr. Schulman’s testimony, and introduction of Nurse Lawson’s report.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 22 5. The failure to impeach Amanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 23 6. The failure to impeach Katie. ............................. 81 24 7. The failure to impeach Nicole. ............................ 82 25 8. Summary.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 26 D. Taken Together, Trial Counsel’s Errors Undermine Confidence In The 27 Outcome Of Trial And Require That The Writ Be Granted. ........... 85 28 ii FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 II. THE PROSECUTOR’S PRESENTATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENT ABOUT TARA REQUIRES THAT RELIEF BE GRANTED. .. 91 2 A. The Relevant Facts. .......................................... 91 3 B. The Presentation Of False Evidence Which Directly Supported The 4 State’s Theory Of The Case, And Just As Directly Undercut The Defense Theory, Requires Relief Under Either Federal Or State Law.. . . 94 5 III. THE STATE’S DECISION TO “ROLL THE DICE” AND CALL BOTH 6 TARA AND KRISTI IN ITS CASE IN CHIEF -- KNOWING THAT DEFENSE COUNSEL COULD NOT IMPEACH EITHER OF THEM 7 WITH THEIR GRAND JURY TESTIMONY -- VIOLATED PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF 8 COUNSEL AND REQUIRES THAT THE WRIT BE GRANTED. .......... 99 9 A. Permitting The Prosecution To Call Both Tara And Kristi Violated Petitioner’s Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel. .... 100 10 B. The State-Induced Deprivation Of Counsel Requires Reversal. ....... 104 11 IV. APPELLATE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE 12 OF COUNSEL IN FAILING TO ARGUE THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF DURESS TO SUSTAIN THE COUNT 10 CHARGE OR 13 CHALLENGE THE TRIAL COURT’S RULING THAT NICOLE’S HISTORY AS A STRIPPER WOULD BE KEPT FROM THE JURY.. ...... 111 14 A. Introduction... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 15 B. These Claims Are Properly Before The Court.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 16 C. There Was Insufficient Evidence To Sustain The Force Element Of 17 The Count Ten Charge.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 18 D. The Trial Court Improperly Excluded Evidence That Would Have Directly Impeached Nicole’s Testimony.. ........................ 118 19 V. BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT IMPOSED AN UNAUTHORIZED 20 SENTENCE, THE WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED AND THE CASE REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 21 A. The Improper Four Year Consecutive Term For Count Eight. ........ 122 22 B. The Trial Court’s Imposition Of Consecutive Terms On 23 Counts 11 And 12.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 24 VI. EVEN IF NONE OF THE ERRORS IDENTIFIED ABOVE REQUIRES REVERSAL WHEN CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, CONSIDERED 25 TOGETHER THESE ERRORS DEPRIVED PETITIONER OF A FAIR TRIAL.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 26 27 28 iii FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 VII. DISCOVERY IS APPROPRIATE TO DETERMINE IF THE PROSECUTION SUPPRESSED MATERIAL EVIDENCE BY FAILING 2 TO DISCLOSE (1) INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED IN NEW YORK BETWEEN POLICE AND NUMEROUS WITNESSES THE 3 PROSECUTION CALLED AT TRIAL AND (2) A PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGE OF COMPLAINING WITNESS NICOLE G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 4 A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 5 B. Because New York And California Investigators Were Jointly 6 Investigating Petitioner, Working Closely Together And Sharing Resources, California Authorities Were Not Entitled To Suppress 7 Favorable Material Evidence In The New York Reports And Discovery Of Those Reports Is Now Proper. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 8 C. Discovery Is Appropriate In Order To Determine If Nicole Had 9 Criminal Charges Pending Against Her When She Reported Petitioner’s Conduct To Police And Testified Against Him. . . . . . . . . . . 134 10 VIII. BECAUSE JUROR DYMALLY SPOKE WITH A NON-JUROR ABOUT 11 THIS CASE AND RESEARCHED THE CASE ON THE INTERNET, A PRESUMPTION OF PREJUDICE ARISES AND RELIEF MUST BE 12 GRANTED UNLESS THE STATE CAN PROVE THE MISCONDUCT HARMLESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 13 IX. THE DECEMBER 18, 2013 PETITION WAS TIMELY FILED. . . . . . . . . . . . 139 14 A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 15 B. Facts Relevant To The Question Of Timeliness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 16 C. The Petition Was Timely Because There Was No Substantial Delay 17 Attributable To Petitioner And It Was Filed Within Five Months Of The Discovery Of Triggering Facts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 18 D. Taken Together, The Substantive Claims In The Petition Show 19 That Petitioner Received An Unfair Trial And That He May Be Actually Innocent Of The Charges. ............................. 146 20 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iv FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 FEDERAL CASES 3 4 Alcorta v. Texas (1957) 355 U.S. 28. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 5 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 6 Bell v. Cone (2002) 535 U.S. 685. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106, 107, 108 7 Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128, 134 8 Bragg v. Galaza (9th Cir. 2001) 242 F.3d 1082. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 9 Brooks v. Tennessee (1972) 406 U.S.605. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 107 10 Bullcoming v. New Mexico (2011) 131 S.Ct. 2705. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 11 Chambers v. Armontiout (8th Cir. 1990) 907 F.2d 825.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 12 Clinksdale v. Carter (6th Cir. 2004) 375 F.3d 430-435. .... 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 81 13 Crawford v. Washington (2004) 541 U.S. 36. ........................... 78 14 Crutchfield v. Wainwright (11th Cir. 1986) 803 F.2d 1103. ............... 108 15 Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308. ................................ 107 16 Douglas v. California (1963) 372 U.S. 353. ........................... 113 17 Dugas v. Coplan (1st Cir. 2005) 428 F.3d 317. . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 81 18 Eve v. Senkowski (2nd Cir. 2003) 321 F.3d 110. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 19 Evitts v. Lucey (1985) 469 U.S. 387. ................................. 113 20 Ferguson v. Georgia (1961) 365 U.S. 570. ............................ 107 21 Franklin v. Johnson (9th Cir. 2002) 290 F.3d 1223. ...................... 71 22 Geders v. United States (1976) 425 U.S. 80. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102, 107 23 Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U.S. 150.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 24 Hall v. Director of Corrections (9th Cir. 2003) 343 F.3d 976. .............. 95 25 Harris v. Reed (7th Cir. 1990) 894 F.2d 871.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 26 Harris v. Wood (9th Cir. 1995) 64 F.3d 1432. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 27 Hart v. Gomez (9th Cir. 1999) 174 F.3d 1067.. . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 81 28 Herring v. New York (1975) 422 U.S. 853. ........................ 102, 106 v FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 Higgins v. Renico (6th Cir. 2006) 470 F.3d 624. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 2 Hintz v. Beto (5th Cir. 1967) 379 F.2d 937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 3 Jackson v. Virginia (1979) 443 U.S. 307. ............................. 115 4 Kleba v. Williams (7th Cir. 1986) 796 F.2d 947. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 5 Kyles v. Whitley (1995) 514 U.S. 419. ........................... 128, 133 6 Maxwell v. Roe (9th Cir. 2010) 628 F.3d 486. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 7 Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (2009) 557 U.S. 305. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 8 Miller v. Pate (1967) 386 U.S. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 9 Moon v. Head (11th Cir. 2002) 285 F.3d 1301. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 10 Murray v. Carrier (1986) 477 U.S. 478. .............................. 113 11 Napue v. Illinois (1959) 360 U.S. 264.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 96 12 Nunes v. Mueller (9th Cir. 2003) 350 F.3d 1045.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 13 Pavel v. Hollins (2nd Cir. 2001) 261 F.3d 210. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 14 Pennsylvania v. Finley (1987) 481 U.S. 551.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 15 Pham v. Terhune (9th Cir. 2004) 400 F.3d 740.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133, 135 16 Sheppard v. Rees (9th Cir. 1989) 909 F.2d 1234. ....................... 102 17 Soffar v. Dretke (5th Cir. 2004) 368 F.3d 441.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 18 Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668. . . . . . . . . . 70, 71, 85, 89, 102, 105, 106, 107 19 Thomas v. Hubbard (9th Cir. 2001) 273 F.3d 1164. ..................... 127 20 United States v. Agurs (1976) 427 U.S. 97. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94, 95 21 United States v. Bagley (1985) 473 U.S. 667. .......................... 133 22 United States v. Gaskins (9th Cir. 1988) 849 F.2d 454.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 23 United States v. Gouveia (1984) 467 U.S. 180. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 24 United States v. Harvill (9th Cir. 1974) 501 F.2d 295. ................... 102 25 United States v. Kojoyan (9th Cir. 1996) 8 F.3d 1315. .................... 86 26 United States v. Young (9th Cir. 1994) 17 F.3d 1201. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 27 Washington v. Texas (1967) 388 U.S. 14. ......................... 107, 119 28 Welch v. Simmons (10th Cir. 2006) 451 F.3d 675.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 vi FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 Wiggins v. Smith (2003) 539 U.S. 510. ................. 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 81, 89 2 Williams v. Taylor (2000) 529 U.S. 362. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 3 In re Winship (1970) 397 U.S. 358. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 4 Wright v. United States (9th Cir. 1964) 339 F.2d 578.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 5 6 STATE CASES 7 Barnett v. Superior Court (2010) 50 Cal.4th 890. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 8 Commonwealth v. Segovia (Mass. 2001) 757 N.E.2d 752. ................. 84 9 In re Carpenter (1995) 9 Cal.4th 634 .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 10 In re Clark (1993) 5 Cal.4th 750. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140, 146 11 In re Dixon (1953) 41 Cal.2d 756. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 112 12 In re Ferguson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 525. .................................. 95 13 In re Gay (1998) 19 Cal.4th 771. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 14 In re Hamilton (1999) 20 Cal.4th 273 . ............................... 137 15 In re Huddleston (1969) 71 Cal.2d 1031.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 16 In re Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 17 In re McGrew (1967) 66 Cal.2d 685. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 18 In re Merkle (1960) 182 Cal.App.2d 46. ............................... 95 19 In re Mitchell (1968) 68 Cal.2d 258. ................................. 137 20 In re Pedro T. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1041. ................................ 136 21 In re Perez (1966) 65 Cal.2d 224. ................................... 137 22 In re Ring (1966) 64 Cal.2d 450. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 23 In re Robbins (1998) 18 Cal.4th 770. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139, 140, 144 24 In re Sanders (1999) 21 Cal.4th 697. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140, 143 25 In re Scott (2003) 29 Cal.4th 783. ................................... 134 26 In re Stankewitz (1985) 40 Cal.3d 391. ............................... 137 27 In re Wright (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 788. ............................... 95 28 vii FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 People v. Asbury (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 362.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 2 People v. Balcom (1994) 7 Cal.4th 414.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 3 People v. Bowers (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 722. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 4 People v. Brown (1988) 46 Cal.3d 432. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 5 People v. Campbell (1966) 239 Cal.App.2d 252.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 6 People v. Cardenas (1982) 31 Cal.3d 897. ............................. 89 7 People v. Chatman (2006) 38 Cal.4th 344. ................. 65, 129, 130, 131 8 People v. Claxton (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 638. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 9 People v. Coyer (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 839. .......................... 134 10 People v. Cruz (1964) 61 Cal.2d 861. ................................. 86 11 People v. Danks (2004) 32 Cal.4th 269 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 12 People v. Dickey (2005) 35 Cal.4th 884. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 13 People v. Espinoza (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1287. ....................... 116 14 People v. Hecker (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1238.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 15 People v. Howard (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 41. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 16 People v. Lanfrey (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 491. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 17 People v. Leal (2004) 33 Cal.4th 999. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116, 117 18 People v. Martinez (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1071.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 19 People v. McShann (1958) 50 Cal.2d 802.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 20 People v. Mitchell (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 132. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 21 People v. Moore (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 22 People v. Morris (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 23 People v. Nesler (1997) 16 Cal.4th 561 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 24 People v. Powell (1967) 67 Cal.2d 32.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 25 People v. Robbins (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 261. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 26 People v. Roberts (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1106.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 27 People v. Rucker (1980) 26 Cal.3d 368.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 28 viii FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 People v. Sassounian (1988) 9 Cal.4th 535.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 2 People v. Seaton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 598. ............................... 94 3 People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 4 People v. Soojian (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 491.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89, 121 5 People v. Soto (2011) 51 Cal.4th 229. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 6 People v. Stanley (2006) 39 Cal.4th 913. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 7 People v. Tripp (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 951. .......................... 115 8 People v. Valenzuela (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 381. ...................... 113 9 People v. Vierra (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264. .............................. 139 10 People v. Watson (1956) 46 Cal.2d 818. ............................... 84 11 People v. Wilkerson (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1571.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 12 Walker v. Martin (2010) 2010 WL 4818791 at 12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 13 14 DOCKETED CASES 15 People v. Alexander, New York Case No. 0081/2008. ................... 131 16 People v. Alexander, New York Case No. 6042/07. ...................... 74 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ix FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 INTRODUCTION 2 3 A grand jury indicted petitioner on 59 counts of sexual misconduct involving 19 4 separate victims. From day one there were credibility problems with the state’s case -- 5 prior to trial the state dismissed more than half the counts involving more than half the 6 originally named victims. This case, it would turn out, was not about forensic evidence, it 7 was about credibility and corroboration. 8 9 As discussed in the Statement of Facts below, each of the 9 complaining witnesses 10 that remained had credibility issues. To buttress the credibility of its entire case, shortly 11 before trial the state named (and ultimately called) eight section 1108 witnesses to testify 12 about acts of sexual misconduct against petitioner for which he had never been tried, 13 many of which were alleged to have occurred years earlier. Several of these section 1108 14 witnesses were particularly important because they accused petitioner of forcible sex 15 offenses just like the forcible offenses charged in counts 9, 10 and 33 of the California 16 indictment. The prosecutor would tell jurors repeatedly that they could rely on these 17 section 1108 witnesses to corroborate the complaining witnesses. 18 19 Ultimately, it is fair to say the jury reached something of a split decision as to the 20 credibility of the state’s case, although it was a decision that certainly tilted in the state’s 21 favor. The jury resolved credibility against the state as to 2 complaining witnesses 22 (involving 6 counts) and in the state’s favor on 7 complaining witnesses (involving 18 23 counts). 24 25 But as discussed more fully below, the jury charged with assessing the credibility 26 of the state’s key witnesses did not hear the full story. It turns out there was a wealth of 27 readily available impeachment evidence the jury never heard. The evidence impeaches, 28 and in some cases utterly destroys, the state’s key section 1108 witnesses -- that is, those 1 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 corroborating section 1108 witnesses who testified to prior violent sexual acts like the 2 forcible sexual acts alleged in counts 9, 10 and 33. The evidence also impeaches the 3 complaining witnesses as well. The evidence consists of photographs never shown to the 4 jury. It consists of recorded videotape footage never shown to the jury. It consists of 5 instant message chats with purported victims, never shown to the jury. It consists of prior 6 sworn grand jury testimony of several witnesses, never shown to the jury. It consists of 7 numerous eyewitnesses never presented to the jury. 8 9 Given the nature of an adversary system, petitioner fully expects the state to fight 10 tooth and nail on this case. That may well be how the system is supposed to work. But at 11 the end of the day, given the array of evidence never presented in this case there should 12 be no genuine dispute not only that the state presented (and relied on) utterly false 13 testimony in seeking to convict petitioner, but the jury resolving the credibility questions 14 at the heart of this case simply did not hear the full story. In light of all the errors which 15 occurred in this case, and considering the evidence which was not presented, petitioner’s 16 trial was simply not fair. Relief is required. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 10/12/2022 07:40 AM INDEX NO. 600703/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 765 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/12/2022 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE 2 3 On October 4, 2007, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a 59-count 4 amended indictment against defendant Anand Jon Alexander. The indictment alleged 59 5 acts of sexual misconduct with 19 separate victims. Prior to trial, however, the state 6 dismissed 34 counts involving 10 alleged victims. (2 CT 374-375.) This left an 7 indictment containing 25 counts with nine victims. The charges which were not 8 dismissed were as follows: 9 10 1) Counts 3-6 of the indictment involved Autumn A. Counts 3, 4 and 5 alleged lewd acts in violation of Penal Code section 288(c)(1). (1 11 CT 28-29.) Count 6 alleged contributing to the delinquency of a minor in violation of section 272(a)(1). (1 CT 29.) 12 2) Counts 7-9 involved Jessie B. Count 7 alleged a sexual battery, 13 count 8 alleged an attempted forcible oral copulation and count 9 alleged a rape in violation of sections 243.4, 288a(c)(2) and 14 261(a)(2) respectively. (1 CT 30-31.) 15 3) Counts 10-12 involved Amanda C. Count 10 alleged sexual