Free Response to Order to Show Cause - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04736-JSW

Document 6

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 1 of 3

1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General 3 GERALD A. ENGLER Senior Assistant Attorney General 4 PEGGY S. RUFFRA Supervising Deputy Attorney General 5 JULIET B. HALEY Deputy Attorney General 6 State Bar No. 162823 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-3664 7 Telephone: (415) 703-5960 Fax: (415) 703-1234 8 Email: [email protected] 9 Attorneys for Respondent 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Respondent hereby provides this Answer to the Order to Show Cause why the petition v. BEN CURRY, Warden, Respondent. SAINT DEJUAN MOORE, Petitioner, C 07-04736 JSW RESPONDENT'S ANSWER TO THE COURT'S ORDER TO SHOW

21 should not be granted. 22 23 24 I. CUSTODY Petitioner Saint Djuan Moore is lawfully in the custody of respondent within the meaning

25 of the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3) and 2254(d), pursuant to a valid 26 judgment of the Alameda County Superior Court, an Alameda County jury having found petitioner 27 guilty of attempted robbery and of assault. The court also found that petitioner had previously 28 suffered a prior conviction. On January 13, 2003, the superior court sentenced petitioner to 5
Respondent's Answer To The Court's Order To Show - Moore v. Curry - C 07-04736 JSW

1

Case 3:07-cv-04736-JSW

Document 6

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 2 of 3

1 years four months in state prison. 2 3 4 II. PROCEDURAL ISSUES Petitioner has exhausted his state remedies as to the claims herein presented and the

5 petition is timely. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). 6 7 8 III. DENIAL OF CLAIMS Respondent denies that petitioner suffered any deprivation of constitutional rights

9 supporting habeas corpus relief. Specifically, respondent denies: (1) the prosecutor's misconduct 10 in commenting on Petitioner's failure to testify violated his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent; 11 (2) the Petitioner's constitutional rights were violated by the prosecutor's misconduct in assurming 12 the jury that the presumption of innocence disappears at the close of evidence; (3) the Petitiner's 13 constitutional rights were violated by the prosecutor's misconduct in vouching for her witness' 14 credibility; and (4) the petitioner's rights were violated by the prosecutor's misconduct in suggesting 15 to the jury that Petitioner would prey on others if he were acquitted. 16 Respondent last asserts that none of these claims entitle petitioner to relief because he has

17 failed to establish that the state court's denial of these claims was either an unreasonable application 18 of clearly established Federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court or resulted in 19 a decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented to 20 the state courts. Respondent incorporates by reference the accompanying memorandum of points 21 and authorities in support of this denial. 22 23 24 IV. TRANSCRIPTS AND RECORDS Copies of the transcript of petitioner's trial together with copies of the briefs filed on

25 direct appeal have been lodged with this Court. These documents constitute all relevant documents 26 and hearing transcripts necessary for this Court's decision. So far as respondent is aware, all 27 relevant state reported proceedings have been transcribed. Rule 5, Rules Governing Section 2254 28 Case.
Respondent's Answer To The Court's Order To Show - Moore v. Curry - C 07-04736 JSW

2

Case 3:07-cv-04736-JSW

Document 6

Filed 12/07/2007

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JBH:jw
40194544.wpd SF2007402709

CONCLUSION Accordingly, respondent respectfully requests that the petition be denied. Dated: December 7, 2007 Respectfully submitted, EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California DANE R. GILLETTE Chief Assistant Attorney General GERALD A. ENGLER Senior Assistant Attorney General PEGGY S. RUFFRA Supervising Deputy Attorney General /s/ Juliet B. Haley JULIET B. HALEY Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondent

Respondent's Answer To The Court's Order To Show - Moore v. Curry - C 07-04736 JSW

3