Bolin v. Jill L. Brown, et al
Filing
239
ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's 222 Application to File Exhibits Under Seal signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/29/2010. (Bradley, A)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Respondent. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 vs. Vincent Cullen, as Acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison,* PAUL C. BOLIN Petitioner, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 1:99-cv-5279-LJO DEATH PENALTY CASE ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S APPLICATION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
This matter is before the Court on the December 22, 2008 application of Petitioner Paul C. Bolin ("Bolin") to file seven exhibits, Exhibits 56, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, and 94, under seal (doc. 222). Bolin has proffered these exhibits in support of his motion for an evidentiary hearing (doc. 214). The exhibits were served on Respondent Vincent Cullen, as acting Warden of San Quentin State Prison (the "Warden") (doc. 224). The Warden has not opposed Bolin's application. Exhibit 56 is comprised of certified copies of California Drivers' Licenses of prospective jurors peremptorily challenged by the prosecution. Bolin has alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for his trial attorneys' failure to challenge prosecutorial strikes of Latino jurors. The basis for sealing these documents is to preserve the privacy of the stricken jurors. Exhibits 65 through 68 are declarations of members of the defense team, relevant to Bolin's claim that his trial attorneys were constitutionally ineffective (in connection with the stricken jurors, lack of investigation, an undefined defense strategy, and poor performance). In each of these declarations, the declarants recite the content of conversations they had with Bolin and reveal trial strategies (or the absence of trial strategies). Bolin states that should the Court find he is entitled to further evidentiary development of his ineffective assistance of counsel
99dp5279.OGrantReq2FileExhibitsUnderSeal.Bol.wpd
* V in c e n t Cullen is substituted for his predecessor Robert K. W o n g , as Acting W a r d e n of San Quentin State Prison p u r s u a n t to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d). 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
claims and these exhibits (or any of them) are admitted in these proceedings, Bolin will request a protective order pursuant to Bittaker v. Woodford, 331 F.3d 715, 718-26 (9th Cir. 2003), to limit use of these documents to the present federal habeas corpus proceedings. Bittaker covers evidence that reveals attorney-client communications as well as attorney work product. Id. at 722, n. 6. Exhibit 72 is a declaration of proffered Strickland expert, James Thomson, also in support of Bolin's various ineffective assistance of counsel claims. As with the declarations of members of the defense team, Bolin will seek a protective order under Bittaker in the event Mr. Thomson's testimony is admitted. While Mr. Thomson's declaration does not constitute attorney-client communications, his testimony references declaration statements made by Bolin's trial counsel, which do recite privileged information and reveal trial strategy. Finally, Exhibit 94 is comprised of two memoranda written by employees of the defense investigator. Mr. Bolin claims these memoranda fall within the scope of the attorney-client privilege. The investigative reports are not covered by the attorney-client privilege, but they do qualify as work product, subject to protection under Bittaker.
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, Exhibits 56, 65, 66, 67, 68, 72, and 94 shall be filed under seal to preserve confidential and privileged information.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE:
March 29, 2010
/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
99dp5279.OGrantReq2FileExhibitsUnderSeal.Bol.wpd
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
