Wharton

Wharton v. Calderon

Good Law
127 F.3d 1201·97 Daily Journal DAR 13713·47 Fed. R. Serv. 1214·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 30308·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8474
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitNovember 5, 1997Nos. 96-99021, 96-99023California2,775 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Tashima, J.

George Herbert Wharton has pending in the district court his petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his first-degree murder conviction, with special circumstance, and sentence of death in the California state courts. See People v. Wharton, 53 Cal.3d 522 , 280 Cal.Rptr. 631 , 809 P.2d 290 (1991). In his habeas petition, Wharton raises, inter alia, broad claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

On Wharton’s motion, the district court issued a protective order prohibiting the respondent Warden of the San Quentin State Prison (Warden) from communicating with 14 potential witnesses and two groups, 1 except by noticed deposition. 2 The Warden *1203 appeals from that order and a subsequent order of clarification.

In his first amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, Wharton alleges the ineffective assistance of trial counsel. These allegations consist of 29 separate claims, some with multiple sub-parts. In addition, Wharton also alleges claims for the ineffective assistance of psychiatric experts, appellate counsel and numerous claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel in connection with his 1975 second-degree murder conviction.

The district court…

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.