Case 2:00-cv-05686-CAS -AJW Document 180 Filed 11/20/11 Page 1 of 62 Page ID #:1085 1 WILLIAM F. PEPPER 2 D.C. Bar No. 464502 3 1003K St., Suite 640 4 Washington, D.C., 20001 5 575 Madison Ave, Suite 1006 6 New York, NY 10022 7 Telephone: (212) 605-0515 8 Facsimile: ( 718) 956-8 553 9 wpintlawus@aol. com 10 11 LAURIE D. DUSEK 12 NY State bar No. 2588481 13 63-52 Saunders St. 14 Rego Park, NY 11374 15 Telephone: (718) 897-2700 16 Facsimile: ( 718) 8 97-27 03 17 ldd1126@gmail. com 18 Attorneys for the Petitioner 19 Admitted Pro Hoc Vice 20 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 22 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 23 35 24 SIRHAN BISHARA SIRHAN 36 ) 25 37 ) NO. CV-00-5686-CAS (A.:JW) 26 Petitioner, 38 ) 27 39 ) REPLY BRIEF ON THE 28 vs. 40 ) THE ISSUE OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE 29 41 ) 30 GEORGE GALAZA, WARDEN, et. al,42 ) (28 U.S.C. section 2254) 31 43 ) 32 Respondents 44 ) Bon. Andrew J. Wistrich 33 45 ) United States Magistrate Judge 34 i • Case 2:00-cv-05686-CAS -AJW Document 180 Filed 11/20/11 Page 2 of 62 Page ID #:1086 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS I 2 I 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................................. 51 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES...................................................... 6 i I 5 INTRODUCTION ••••.•••••.••••••••••••••••••.•••.•••....••..•.•.•...••....................................••.••......•••.•.....•. 61 6 ARGUMENT······"······""""········"············"·"·····"·····"·······"········"·"··"·····"········"············"····· 'I 7 1. PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL INNOCENCE IS SUFFICIENT UNDER I 8 THE PREVAILING STANDARD TO COMPEL CONSIDERATION OF HIS CLAIM I l 9 FOR RELIEF ....................................................................................................................... 7 1 10 A. The Standard for Actual Innocence ................................................................. 71 11 1. The Schlup Definition of''New Evidence" In The Ninth Circuit ............ 11 I i 12 B. Petitioner's Evidence Oflnnocence Is Sufficient To Establish The Probability i l 13 That No Reasonable Juror Would Vote to Convict ........................................ 13 I I 14 1. The Pruszynski Recording ....................................................................... 15 I 15 2. The Eyewitness Evidence ......................................................................... 20 I 16 a. Petitioner's Location Was In Front Of the Senator At All Times ........ 20 17 b. Petitioner's Hand Was Pinned To The Steam Table After The Second 18 Shot. ...................................................................................................... 23 19 3. The Undeveloped Evidence in the Autopsy Report and Related Ballistics. 20 .................................................................................................................. 24 21 4. Petitioner Was Subjected to Extensive and Sophisticated Hypno 22 Programming and Mind Control Rendering Him An Involuntary In The 23 Crimes With Which He Is Charged .......................................................... 30 24 2. PETITIONER HAS SUFFERED NONHARMLESS CONSTITUIONAL VIOLATIONS 25 OF HIS RIGHTS UNDER BRADY V MARYLAND 373 U.S. 85 (1963) AND 26 STRICKLAND V. WASHINGTON 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ..................................................... 36 27 A. The Brady Violations .................................................................................... 36 2 Case 2:00-cv-05686-CAS -AJW Document 180 Filed 11/20/11 Page 3 of 62 Page ID #:1087 1 1. Petitioner Was Denied His Right To Due Process Under Brady Because 2 The State Knowingly Introduced Into Evidence a Bullet It claimed Had I 3 Been Removed From the Neck Of Senator Kennedy And Withheld The 1 4 Actual Neck Bullet From The Petitioner and The Judge And Jury ......... 38 ! i 5 2. The State Withheld And Destroyed Evidence That More Than Eight I I 6 Bullets Had been Found At the Scene ...................................................... 41 ! 7 3. The State Withheld From the Defense and Then Destroyed The Second 8 Gun H 18602 As Well As Well AS Test Fired Bullets From Said Pistol I 9 Which Were Available At the Time of Trial ............................................ 421 I 10 4. The State Prejudicially Delayed Turning The Autopsy Report Over To I I 11 The Defense .............................................................................................. 43 1 I 12 5. The State Suppressed Destroyed and Thus Denied To Petitioner The I I 13 Results OfThe Blood Test Taken On The Night OfThe Crime ............. 451 14 B. Petitioner Was Denied His Right To Effective Assistance Of Counsel !:. 15 Pursuant to The Sixth And Fourteenth Amendment And Under Strickland, As 16 A Result of Defense Counsel's Conflict of Interest and Or Incompetence, 17 Which Resulted In Multiple Harmful Acts And Omissions By Defense 18 Counsel, Resulting In A Miscarriage Of Justice Being Suffered By Petitioner . 19 ....................................................................................................................... 46 20 1. Lead Counsel's Conflict of Interest ......................................................... 46 21 2. The First Strickland Violation: The Delayed Delivery Of The Autopsy 49 22 _Report ....................................................................................................... 49 23 3. The Second Strickland Violation: The Failure Of The State To Turn Over 24 Prior To Destroying The Results Of Petitioner's Blood And UrineTests 50 25 4. The Third Strickland Violation: Petitioner's Counsel Stipulated To The 26 Admission Of the State's Ballistic Evidence Including The Substituted 27 Neck Bullet -People's Exhibit 47- Without First Conducting Any Tests 28 Of His Own, Or Examining The State's Test Results Record ................ 51 3 Case 2:00-cv-05686-CAS -AJW Document 180 Filed 11/20/11 Page 4 of 62 Page ID #:1088 1 5. The Fourth Strickland Violation: Petitioner's Counsel Failed To Conduct 2 Any Investigation Of The State's Case Or Consider Any Alternative .... 55 3 _Defenses ................................................................................................... 55 4 6. The Fifth Strickland Violation: The Introduction Into Evidence Of 5 Potentially Incriminating Evidence Against Petitioner By His Counsel.. 57 6 3. CONCLUSION AND REQUESTED RELIEF ................................................................. 61 7 8 4 Case 2:00-cv-05686-CAS -AJW Document 180 Filed 11/20/11 Page 5 of 62 Page ID #:1089 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 Brady v. Maryland,313 U.S. 83 (1963) .................................................................................... 9 4 Calderon v. Thompson 523 US538, 557 (1986) ....................................................................... 9 5 Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharamceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579, (1993] .................................... 32 6 Gilio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150,154,92 S. Ct. 763, 766 [1972] ..................................... 40 7 Griffin v Johnson,350 F3d 956,961 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................ 11 8 House v Bell, 547 U.S. 518; 126 S. Ct (2006) ........................................................................ 11 9 Lee v. Lampert [2011 WL 3275947 (9th Circuit en bane OR.) ................................................ 6 10 Lisker v. Knowles, [463 F. Sup. 2d 1008 CCD Cal (2006)] ................................................... 10 11 Little v. Murphy!). 62 F.Supp.2d 262, 276 (D.Mass. 1999) ...................................................... 53 12 Malone v. Oklahoma, 100 Fed.Appx. 795, 797 (lOth Cir. 2004) ........................................... 37 13 Mooney v. Holohan, 264 U.S. 103, 55 S.Ct. 340, 342, 79 L Ed.791 (1935) .......................... 40 14 Murray v. Carrier, [477 US 478, 496, 106 S. Ct. 2439, 91 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1998)] ................. 7 15 Napue v Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 79 S. Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed 2d .................................................... 40 16 People v. Hitch, 12 Cal. 3d 642 (1974) ................................................................................... 45 17 Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213, 63 s. Ct. 177, 87 ..................................................................... 40 18 Sanchez v. Hedgpeth, 106 F.Supp.2d 963 (C.D.Ca 2010) ..................................................... 53 19 Sawyer v. Whitley,(505 US 333) ............................................................................................... 8 20 Schlup v. Delo, [513 US 298, 115 S. Ct. 851, 130 L.Ed. 2d 808 (1995)] ................................ 7 21 Sirhan Bishara Sirhan v. Michael McGowan, cv 00-5686-CAS, 2011 ................................... 48 22 Stricklandv. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) ....................................................................... 9 23 U.S. V. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438,469 (2d Cir. 2004) .................................................................. 53 24 5 Case 2:00-cv-05686-CAS -AJW Document 180 Filed 11/20/11 Page 6 of 62 Page ID #:1090 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 INTRODUCTION 3 Pursuant to the decision by the Ninth Circuit in Lee v. Lampert this court has ordered 4 additional briefmg as to petitioner's claim of actual innocence, which was disregarded in 5 Respondent's prior supplemental brief. Though, as a result of the Circuit Court ruling this 6 Court has ordered us to focus on the issue of petitioner's actual innocence, petitioner in no 7 way concedes his entitlement to statutory tolling based, amongst other issues, upon his 8