In re Rogers
249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 520
Cal.
2019

Background

  • David Keith Rogers, a former Kern County deputy, was convicted of first‑degree murder (Tracie Clark) and second‑degree murder (Janine Benintende) and sentenced to death; convictions affirmed in People v. Rogers (2006).
  • At the penalty phase a prosecution witness, Tambri Butler, testified she had been sexually assaulted by Rogers in 1986; her testimony was invoked at sentencing to show a pattern of violent sexual conduct.
  • Years later Butler signed declarations expressing doubt that she had correctly identified Rogers and supplied alternative details pointing toward another suspect, Michael Ratzlaff; defense counsel sought habeas relief alleging misidentification, newly discovered evidence, and prosecutorial nondisclosure/ineffective assistance claims.
  • The Supreme Court referred factual questions to a referee, who conducted an evidentiary hearing (27 witnesses) and found Butler had testified falsely about identifying Rogers and about related matters (seeing Rogers on TV before the lineup, expectations of leniency, and the nature of her custody offense).
  • The Court independently reviewed the record, credited many of the referee’s factual findings (including discrepancies between Butler’s descriptions and Rogers’ appearance and the similarities between Butler’s assault and Ratzlaff’s known attacks), and concluded Butler’s false testimony was material to the penalty verdict.
  • The Court granted habeas relief limited to vacating Rogers’ death sentence; other habeas claims were left for later resolution.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Rogers) Defendant's Argument (State) Held
1. Did Butler falsely identify Rogers as her 1986 assailant? Butler later recanted; physical description and truck details fit Ratzlaff, not Rogers. Butler’s posttrial doubts are unreliable; differences (mustache, stun gun, truck) could be disguised; height favors Rogers. Court: Held Butler’s identification testimony was false or unreliable; accepts referee’s findings.
2. Did Butler give false testimony about collateral matters (TV exposure, expectation of leniency, reason for custody)? Butler’s recorded statements and later admissions show she saw Rogers on TV before ID, believed she’d get early release, and understated her felony charge. State argues inconsistencies and jail folklore do not prove false testimony or material deception. Court: Held Butler falsely testified on these collateral matters; findings supported by evidence.
3. Was there credible alternative evidence (Ratzlaff) showing someone else likely committed Butler’s assault? Pattern of Ratzlaff assaults closely matches Butler’s account (Union Avenue pick‑up, truck, stun gun, shots, anal abuse, robbery). State contends stylistic differences and some physical details distinguish Ratzlaff’s crimes from Butler’s assault. Court: Found the similarities substantively persuasive; Ratzlaff’s pattern supports inference someone else committed the assault.
4. Was the false testimony material to the penalty verdict such that habeas relief is warranted? Butler’s testimony gave the jury vivid, aggravating evidence of sexual sadism that likely affected balancing at sentencing; reasonable probability of a different outcome without it. State argues aggravating evidence otherwise was overwhelming and mitigation weak, so no reasonable probability of different result. Court: Held the false evidence was materially probative and undermines confidence in the death verdict; vacated the death sentence.

Key Cases Cited

  • People v. Rogers, 39 Cal.4th 826 (affirming conviction and sentence) (background on trial and evidence)
  • In re Figueroa, 4 Cal.5th 576 (standard for habeas when false evidence introduced)
  • In re Richards, 63 Cal.4th 291 (discussing proof required to show testimony objectively false)
  • In re Hamilton, 20 Cal.4th 273 (deference to referee’s findings but independent review of law)
  • In re Malone, 12 Cal.4th 935 (referee credibility assessments entitled to weight)
  • In re Cox, 30 Cal.4th 974 (burden of proof on habeas petitioner)
  • In re Roberts, 29 Cal.4th 726 (skepticism toward posttrial recantations; materiality standard)
  • In re Weber, 11 Cal.3d 703 (viewing recantations with suspicion)
  • In re Sassounian, 9 Cal.4th 535 (reasonable‑probability/undermining confidence standard for materiality)
  • People v. Sánchez, 63 Cal.4th 411 (context re: stun gun ownership and relevance)
  • People v. Castro, 38 Cal.3d 301 (use of moral‑turpitude offenses for impeachment)
Read the full case