Salazar, et al v. Stewart, et al
| Alfonso Raymond Salazar |
| Terry Stewart and Ernest Trujillo |
| 4:1996cv00085 |
| February 5, 1996 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Pima |
| Frank R Zapata |
| Prisoner: Death Penalty - Habeas Corpus |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
307
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Respondents' 299 Motion to Preclude Strickland Experts is GRANTED IN PART. The Court precludes testimony from Petitioner's Strickland experts on issues other than the relevant prevailing professional norms. Respo ndents objections to Exhibits 111, 164, 177179 and 182184 are OVERRULED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents' 300 Motion to Preclude Evidence of William Redondo's Reputation, Disciplinary Records, and Criminal History is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Respondents' objections to Exhibits 76 and 77 are SUSTAINED. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 8/10/17.(BAC)
|
|
Filing
277
ORDERED Petitioner shall submit the witness interview notes in dispute to the Court, ex parte and under seal for in camera review, no later than June 23, 2017. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Petitioner shall submit to the Court, ex parte and under seal for in camera review, any drafts of the supplemental report, and any additional argument they wish to make about the question of whether the witness interview notes are a "draft report" under Rule 26(b)(4)(B). Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 6/19/2017. (See attached Order for details) (KEP)
|
|
Filing
254
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's 246 Motion for Disclosure is DENIED. Petitioner's 247 Motion to Limit the Scope of the Expert Evaluation is DENIED. Petitioner's 48 Motion to Observe/Record the Evaluation is DENIED. If Resp ondents conclude that counsel's presence or observation via live feed would not be disruptive and consent to Petitioner's counsel's presence, counsel may be present in an observation capacity only within the parameters of any such consent. If Respondents conclude that recording the evaluation would not be disruptive and record the evaluation, a copy of the recording shall be disclosed to Petitioner. Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 3/13/17.(BAC)
|
|
Filing
222
ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that, no later than 30 days following the filing of this Order, the parties shall each file a brief, not in excess of 17 pages, regarding the two issues set forth above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties may choose to addres s the impact of Runningeagle v. Ryan, No. 07-99026, 2016 WL 3213095 (9th Cir. June 10, 2016) on the applicability of Martinez to Petitioner's claims in their supplemental briefing. (See attached PDF for complete information). Signed by Senior Judge Frank R Zapata on 7/7/16.(BAC)
|
|
Filing
177
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER regarding sentencing-related claims. ORDERED that Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 and all amendments thereto 62 , 113 are DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment acco rdingly. FURTHER ORDERED that the stay of execution entered by this Court on 2/2/1996 is VACATED. FURTHER ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability is GRANTED as to two specific issues (see attached PDF). FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court forward a copy of this Order to Clerk of the Arizona Supreme Court. ***See attached PDF for complete information***. Signed by Judge Frank R Zapata on 9/15/08. (CLJ, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
