In Re Pratt

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 122·69 Cal. App. 4th 1294·82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 260·99 Daily Journal DAR 1447·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1209
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 16, 1999B113866California11,220 words

Opinion

Opinion

Masterson, J.

At the conclusion of an evidentiary hearing, an able and experienced trial judge, applying well-established legal principles, granted Elmer Gerard Pratt’s petition for writ of habeas corpus. The basis for the ruling was that, under Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83 [ 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 ], Pratt had been deprived of evidence at his 1972 murder trial that would have “permitted potentially devastating cross-examination or other impeachment evidence” regarding prosecution witness Julius Butler, and that this deprivation undermined confidence in the verdict. On the People’s appeal, we find ourselves in agreement with the trial court. Accordingly, we affirm.

Background

In August 1972, Pratt, a member of the Black Panther Party (BPP), was convicted of the December 18, 1968, murder of Caroline Olsen and assault with intent to commit murder of her husband, Kenneth Olsen, during a robbery perpetrated by two men on a tennis court in Santa Monica. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. (People v. Pratt (Feb. 1, 1974) 22504 [nonpub. opn.].) In November 1979, Pratt filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in superior court that was denied without an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.