Free Additional Attachments to Main Document - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 71
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118—NVW Document 115-3 Filed O3/28/2007 Page1 014

AFPEBAVTT
State of Arizona )
) ss.
County of Maricopa )
Being first duly sworn, J. DOUGLAS McVAY says as follows:
1. The Maricopa County Superior Court appointed me on November 21, 1984 to 1
represent Steven James in connection with his Petition for Post—Conviction
relief pursuant to Rule 32, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. ~
2. l filed a Supplemental Petition on February 13, 1985, shortly after interviewing
Mr. James at the prison to ascertain the factual bases of his claims for post- i
conviction relief.
3. The principal issues in the Supplemental Petition related to claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel, based on matters that had not been developed in the court
record. The Supplemental Petition alleged that Mr. James’ trial counsel had
failed to investigate and present evidence relating to Mr. J ames’ drug overdose
on the day of the homicide, his prolonged drug abuse and his impaired mental
health.
4. I believed that I had alleged facts establishing "colorable" claims of ineffective
assistance of counsel, entitling my client to an evidentiary hearing under
Arizona case law.
5. l initiated fact investigations to augment the Supplemental Petition with
documentation and to prepare for an evidentiary hearing.
@,914/
A. My clienti 3”souglit all records in the possession of the Maricopa
County Sheriff relating to Mr. J ames’ placement in a jail cell for suicidal
inmates.
1
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118-NVW Document 115-3 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 2 of 4

B. I contacted potential witnesses identified by Mr. James as having
inforrnation relating to his mental health and drug abuse, and I asked
those witnesses to prepare notes on these issues, so that I could question
them at an evidentiary hearing.
6. ln conducting my fact investigation, I relied on Rule 32.6 (d), Arizona Rules of
Criminal Procedure (as it read in 1985), which provided that amended pleadings
"sha1lbe liberall allowed."
Y
7. In conducting my fact investigation, I also relied on Rule 32.10, Arizona Rules
of Criminal Procedure (as it read in 1985), which provided that grounds for
post—conviction relief could be raised either in the petition itself or at the
evidentiary hearing on the petition.
I 8. On February 27, 1985 (only two weeks afterl tiled the Supplemental Petition), I
the State filed its Response. The State urged the court not to address the merit
of the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, contending that they had been
waived on direct appeal.
9. On April 1, 1985, the Superior Court summarily denied the Petition and
Supplemental Petition for Post-Conviction Relief on the ground that all of the
claims were precluded. The court did not address the merit of any claim.
10. I filed a Motion for Rehearing on April 11, 1985, asking the court to reverse its
ruling. I argued that the ineffective assistance of counsel claims had not been
waived. I asserted that the claims were "colorable," requiring a hearing to
develop their factual basis.
11. In my Motion for Rehearing, I also addressed the contingency that the court
might reverse its preclusion ruling but also find the claims in the Supplemental
Petition were not "colorable." lf this contingency were to take place, I requested
the opportunity to file an additional pleading, to supplement the factual bases of
the claims.
12. On May 20, 1985, I tiled an additional pleading, once again emphasizing the
I needfor factual development ofMr. .lames’ claims, pointing to "the compelling
need for a hearing in this case."
2
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118-NVW Document 115-3 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 3 of 4

13. The couit summarily denied my request for a hearing on the merit ofthe claims,
thwartiiig my attempt to develop their factual basis.
. · § 1; ‘'''i
DATED this, 2: day of _;#-t ' . { » ·» · , 2:007.
.. »·’' f `
‘‘`'
D\®UGLAS Mc:\/AY
, sr} \
Subscribed and swom before me this { i day o`iZ_ mar; , 2007

®V{\ Vlaaé
Notary Public
M ;CQf " ¤uE`E`5` e
2 I? Notary Public - Arizona
MARICOPA COUNTY
; it’?.Q p_;,? My Commission Expires
3
Case 2:OO—cv—O1118-NVW Document 115-3 Filed O3/28/2007 Page 4 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-3

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-3

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-3

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:00-cv-01118-NVW

Document 115-3

Filed 03/28/2007

Page 4 of 4