Ervin
Ervin v. Davis
Opinion
Lead Opinion
Koh, J.
DEATH PENALTY CASE
ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment with respect to all 37 claims contained in Petitioner’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner opposes Respondent’s motion and requests an evidentiary hearing on 15 claims. This Order addresses Petitioner’s claims 1 through 6, which pertain to severance and jury selection issues. Foh the reasons discussed below, Respondent’s motion with respect to claim's 1 through 5 is GRANTED, and ruling on claim 6 is deferred. The remainder of Petitioner’s claims shall be addressed in subsequent Orders.
II. BACKGROUND
The following recitation’ of the factual background of this case is based on the California Supreme Court’s opinion on Petitioner’s direct appeal. People v. Ervin, 22 Cal.4th 48 , 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 623 , 990 P.2d 506 (2000). The state court’s factual determinations are presumed to be correct pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2254(e)(1).
Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of Alameda County of first degree murder with the.special circumstance finding of murder for financial gain for the November 7, 1986 killing of Carlene McDonald. Evidence at Petitioner’s trial established…