1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 In Re ) CASE Nos. BH _________ ) 5 LESLIE VAN HOUTEN, ) ) Related Cases: BH007887; S230851 6 Petitioner, ) B240743; B286023 ) S45992; S238110; S221618 7 on Habeas Corpus. ) ______________________________ ) Superior Court Case A253156 8 9 _______________________________________________________ 10 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS; 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES 12 _______________________________________________________ 13 RICH PFEIFFER 14 State Bar No. 189416 NANCY TETRAULT 15 State Bar No. 150352 P.O. Box 721 16 Silverado, CA 92676 Telephone: (714) 710-9149 17 Email:
[email protected] 18 Attorneys for Petitioner Leslie Van Houten 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Page 1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2 TABLE OF EXHIBITS. 2 3 INTRODUCTION. 4 4 PROCEDURAL HISTORY. 8 5 STATEMENT OF FACTS. 10 6 PETITIONER’S JANUARY 30, 2019 PAROLE HEARING DECISION. 16 7 JUNE 3, 2019 GOVERNOR REVERSAL. 17 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.. 18 9 I. MS. VAN HOUTEN IS NOT AN UNREASONABLE RISK TO 10 PUBLIC SAFETY UNDER ANY STANDARD.. 18 11 A. THE STANDARD OF REVIEW.. 18 12 1. Governor Reversal Standard of Review.. 18 13 2. The De Novo Standard of Review is Appropriate. 22 14 B2.. THE REVERSAL OF MS. VAN HOUTEN’S FINDING OF PAROLE SUITABILITY WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.. 25 15 II. THE GOVERNOR FORFEITED NEW REASONS TO DENY PAROLE 16 THAT WERE NOT ASSERTED AT REVERSALS OF EARLIER REVERSALS OF GRANTS OF PAROLE.. 31 17 18 III. MS. VAN HOUTEN WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS WHEN THE PROSECUTION HAD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE IN THE CHARLES 19 “TEX” WATSON TAPES, AND FAILED TO DISCLOSE IT.