Young v. Peery
163 F. Supp. 3d 751
N.D. Cal.2015Background
- Petitioner Robert Young filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 1990 conviction; the Court granted relief on two subclaims of juror misconduct based principally on a 2003 sworn declaration by Juror S.W. showing voir dire concealment and deep-seated racial bias.
- The respondent requested an evidentiary hearing to test the veracity of S.W.’s 2003 declaration; the Court denied the hearing because S.W. died in 2010, making live testimony impossible.
- After the Court granted relief (Sept. 11, 2015), respondent moved for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), arguing the Court erred in concluding an evidentiary hearing was impossible and identifying four scenarios that might undermine S.W.’s declaration.
- Respondent submitted a preliminary investigative report containing unsworn interviews of three witnesses (S.W.’s sister, ex‑wife, and friend) to support those scenarios.
- The Court found the report comprised hearsay, internally inconsistent statements, and offered nothing that refuted key points: S.W.’s concealment of a prior gunpoint robbery in the relevant neighborhood or his expressed racial prejudice; some statements in fact corroborated S.W.’s bias.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 59(e) reconsideration is warranted to grant an evidentiary hearing on juror credibility | Young: prior ruling denying hearing was correct because S.W. is deceased and declaration unrebutted | Respondent: Court erred; new or overlooked evidence (investigative report) could rebut S.W.’s declaration and justify a hearing | Denied — no newly discovered evidence or clear error; hearing still not feasible or warranted |
| Whether the investigatory report rebuts S.W.’s declaration (mental impairment/coercion/anomaly/witness contradictions) | Young: declaration stands; report is hearsay/inconsistent and does not negate key facts | Respondent: report raises scenarios—illness/drugs, coercion by defense investigator, oddity of racist signing declaration, factual contradictions | Denied — report is unsworn, hearsay, inconsistent, and does not meaningfully refute S.W.’s statements, including his knowledge of the neighborhood and racial bias |
| Whether hearsay and procedural barriers preclude use of the proffered evidence to undermine the declaration | Young: respondent failed to show admissible, probative evidence or how to overcome hearsay barriers | Respondent: offered report to show potential grounds to challenge the declaration’s veracity | Held: Court accepts report for consideration but finds it legally and factually insufficient to compel a hearing; hearsay and lack of probative weight are dispositive |
| Whether S.W.’s candid, racially derogatory statements in the declaration undermine its credibility | Young: candid, specific statements support veracity and show bias; alarming nature does not equal falsity | Respondent: alarming content suggests possibility of fabrication or motive to exaggerate | Held: Court concludes candid, disturbing content supports rather than undermines veracity; statements are consistent with corroborating witness remarks about S.W.’s prejudices |
Key Cases Cited
- McDowell v. Calderon, 197 F.3d 1258 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 59(e) reconsideration requires newly discovered evidence, clear error, or intervening change in law)
- 389 Orange St. Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 1999) (standards limiting Rule 59(e) relief and discouraging rehashing arguments)
- Costello v. United States, 765 F. Supp. 1003 (C.D. Cal. 1991) (a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle to reargue matters previously addressed)