Craven v. Robertson

Background

Kalvin N. Craven, the petitioner in this federal habeas action, moved to augment, or add to, the record with two cell-phone videos and a surveillance video admitted as evidence at his state criminal trial. The videos related to constitutional claims that had been adjudicated by the California Court of Appeal. Jim Robertson, the respondent, explained that he did not have access to or control over the trial exhibits and that an order directed to the Alameda County Superior Court would be needed to obtain them. Robertson submitted still photographs because only still photos had been served on him during the state-court appeal.

Record for Federal Habeas Review

The court relied on the rule that federal review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) is limited to the record before the state court that decided the claim on the merits. The court therefore stated that it had to review the same record considered by the California Court of Appeal. It noted that physical exhibits such as videos typically are not part of the appellate record and that an appellate court may instead rely on descriptions of the evidence in its opinion.

The California Court of Appeal had described the cell-phone videos and the surveillance video in its opinion. The court held that those descriptions would be used unless Craven showed that they were materially inaccurate. The court found that he had not made that showing.

Rulings

Judge Susan Illston denied Craven’s motion to augment the record with the videos. The court separately granted his request for an extension of the deadline to file his traverse, which is his response in the habeas proceeding. The court ordered that the traverse be filed and served no later than November 13, 2020. This order addressed the record and filing deadline; the opinion does not decide the underlying habeas claims.