Morris
Morris v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
Opinion
Concurring Opinion
Ferguson, J.
concurring specially:
Two matters have been presented to the court for the first time which call for a *895 more thorough analysis of the validity of the administration of the death penalty in this case.
First, the Panel has been informed for the first time of the prosecution’s position that the three defendants in this case are equally guilty of the murder of the victim. 1 Second, we have been informed for the first time that the mother of the older female defendant, Avette Barrett, notified the authorities that she had threatened to kill her mother, her mother’s husband, and her sister and that they were terrified of her. In order to place these matters in context, a brief summary of the facts surrounding the murder are set forth.
The petitioner, Bruce Morris, and two female co-defendants, Avette Barrett and Allison Eckstrom, were picked up as hitchhikers by Rickey Van Zandt. Van Zandt was murdered (now admitted to be equally murdered) by the three defendants. Petitioner was sentenced to death. Barrett was sentenced to three years for stealing Van Zandt’s automobile. Eckstrom, a juvenile, had all charges dismissed, without any juvenile proceeding against her.
The concession…
Lead Opinion
This case is before us on a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by Petitioner Bruce Wayne Morris. In considering a mandamus petition, we review a district court’s actions for clear error. Cordoza v. *892 Pac. States Steel Corp., 320 F.3d 989 , 998 (9th Cir.2003). Five factors guide our determination whether to grant a mandamus petition:
Bauman v. United States Dist. Court, 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir.1977) (citations omitted).
The district court has yet to make any definitive ruling, clearly erroneous or otherwise, with respect to Petitioner’s request to amend his first amended habeas petition to include Brady 1 and Mooney 2 claims based on newly discovered evidence. We therefore deny Petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In order to place the present issues in context, we recite the recent procedural history of this case.
On November 16, 2001, we remanded Petitioner’s habeas petition to the district court with instructions concerning a new penalty-phase hearing in the state court. We left undisturbed our previous remand for an evidentiary hearing to address Petitioner’s guilt-phase claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and…