Charles Edward Moore, Jr., Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Arthur Calderon, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee

Respondent-Appellant’s motion for stay pending appeal is DENIED.

This case is expedited, and a briefing schedule will be issued shortly.

Judge O’SCANNLAIN would grant the motion for stay.

I respectfully disagree that we should order the release pending appeal of a double murderer who was sentenced to death by a jury of his peers and whose conviction was affirmed in a lengthy decision by the California Supreme Court.

I have no doubt that Moore’s habeas corpus petition raises substantial constitutional questions, as identified in the district court’s opinion. Nor can I condone the state’s failure to file this motion for stay until almost the last minute before Moore’s scheduled release date. Nonetheless, I believe that principles of comity and federalism require us to afford the state the opportunity for full appellate consideration of the district court’s decision. Thus, instead of rushing to judgment, the appropriate course would be to permit full briefing and oral argument on the merits before taking further action. I am convinced that we can expedite the process sufficiently to minimize any prejudice to Moore while still providing the state the careful appellate review…