Craven v. Robertson
- Susan Illston
- 3:20-cv-01933
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Craven v. Robertson, Judge Illston granted reconsideration, vacated an earlier order, and permitted Craven to add video exhibits to the federal record.
Kalvin N. Craven, the petitioner seeking to add trial videos to the federal record, and Jim Robertson, the respondent.
What happened
In Craven v. Robertson, petitioner Kalvin N. Craven asked to add two cellphone videos and a surveillance video from his state criminal trial to the record in his federal challenge. The court had previously denied that request because federal review generally uses the record considered by the state court.
Craven later argued that the California Court of Appeal had possessed the videos when it reviewed his case and then returned them to the Alameda County Superior Court. The court granted his reconsideration request, vacated the earlier order, and allowed him to add copies of the videos to the federal record.
The court required Craven to file the videos, if available, by March 12, 2021, and extended his deadline to file his written response to the respondent's filing to the same date. Judge Susan Illston stated that the court would not extend that deadline again.
The detailed version
- Craven v. Robertson · No. 3:20-cv-01933
- Susan Illston
- Jan. 21, 2021
Background
Kalvin N. Craven, the petitioner, moved to add two cellphone videos and a surveillance video to the record in his federal habeas action. The videos had been admitted as evidence at Craven's state criminal trial. Jim Robertson, the respondent, explained that he did not have access to or control of the trial exhibits and that the court would need an order directed to the Alameda County Superior Court to obtain them. Robertson provided still photographs from the videos because only those photographs had been served on him during the state appeal.
The court previously denied Craven's motion. It explained that federal habeas review is generally limited to the record before the state court that decided the claim on the merits, and that exhibits usually are not part of the appellate record. The court also relied on the California Court of Appeal's description of the video evidence, stating that it would use that description unless Craven showed it was materially inaccurate.
Reconsideration and Record Augmentation
Craven moved for reconsideration and argued, for the first time, that the California Court of Appeal had the video exhibits when it considered his case and later returned them to the Alameda County Superior Court. In light of that argument, the court granted the motion for reconsideration, vacated the earlier order denying record augmentation, and permitted Craven to augment the record in the federal habeas action.
Rather than order the Alameda County Superior Court to provide the videos, the court required Craven to obtain copies, if he did not already have them, and file them in the case. The court said this approach would avoid any possible overreach because it was unclear whether the federal court had authority to order a state superior court to deliver exhibits or copies from its files.
Deadlines and Disposition
The court allowed Craven to file copies of the video exhibits used at his trial and transmitted to the California Court of Appeal for consideration in the criminal appeal no later than March 12, 2021. Because the court needed to wait for that deadline, it also extended the deadline for Craven to file and serve his traverse, meaning his written response in the habeas proceeding, to March 12, 2021. The court stated that this deadline would not be extended again. The order concerns access to and augmentation of the record; it does not decide the merits of Craven's federal habeas claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.