McArthur v. Alameda County Public Defender's Office

Background

This document contains tentative rulings for a pretrial conference. The opinion addresses motions in limine, which are requests to limit or exclude evidence at trial, as well as objections to witnesses and exhibits, proposed jury questions, jury instructions, and administrative trial matters. The underlying case involves Plaintiff Francis McArthur’s asserted due-process violation and the actions and strategies of his public defenders, including delays in proceedings involving the Sexually Violent Predator Act.

Motions in Limine

The court denied Plaintiff’s request to exclude expert testimony from Michael J. Aye. The court found that Aye was not offering the ultimate legal conclusion about whether McArthur suffered a due-process violation and that his opinions were adequately supported. The court said McArthur’s challenges generally concerned the weight of the testimony rather than whether it could be admitted.

The court granted in part Plaintiff’s request to exclude generalizations about sexually violent predator clients. The court stated that Defendants did not oppose excluding three identified categories: evidence about other Coalinga patients bringing unfounded Vasquez claims, other sexually violent predator clients not wanting to come to court, and many sexually violent predator clients consciously deciding to delay trial. The court denied the motion as to unspecified categories because it lacked enough information to decide whether those materials should be excluded.

The court denied Plaintiff’s requests to exclude evidence of his other crimes and bad acts, testimony about statewide or common practices of delaying sexually violent predator trials, evidence of continuances after conflict counsel was appointed, evidence produced by Coalinga that was not in Defendants’ file, evidence that might elicit sympathy for Plaintiff’s public defenders, testimony by public defenders about facts they do not remember, and evidence that Plaintiff was not found incompetent to stand trial in criminal cases. The court’s stated reasons included relevance to whether the public defenders’ delay strategy was reasonable, lack of supporting legal authority or analysis, failure to identify the evidence, or the premature nature of the request.

The court denied Defendants’ requests to exclude evidence of customs, patterns, and practices; references to other civil suits; and habeas decisions in other cases. It considered the first two requests moot because the parties had already agreed not to present evidence concerning supervisory liability or information from other Vasquez cases. The court denied Defendants’ request to exclude evidence related to ineffective assistance of counsel, explaining that such evidence was not automatically irrelevant to the due-process inquiry. The court granted Defendants’ request to exclude evidence of other sexually violent predator cases because Plaintiff did not oppose it.

The court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ request concerning expert Rudy Kraft. Kraft may testify about whether motions filed by McArthur’s public defenders were unlikely to succeed, based on case authority and other attorneys’ practices. He may not testify about whether the public defenders violated McArthur’s due-process rights, whether they met a professional standard of care, whether they properly accommodated McArthur’s intellectual disabilities, whether workload caused a breakdown in the Alameda County Public Defender’s Office, whether they misunderstood their obligations by failing to obtain a guardian ad litem, or customs and practices relating to Monell liability. The court found that some proposed opinions were legal conclusions, that Kraft had not shown sufficient qualifications regarding sexually violent predator trials or the applicable standard of care, that some opinions were inadequately supported, and that Monell liability had been bifurcated.

Evidentiary Objections

The court sustained the objection to Exhibit 1, Michael Aye’s curriculum vitae and expert report. It explained that a curriculum vitae and expert reports generally raise hearsay concerns. The court overruled objections to Exhibits 2 through 8, which included earlier sexually violent predator evaluations, because they were offered as evidence of information before the public defenders when they developed their strategy, not for the truth of the statements in the evaluations. The court also found the evaluations relevant to whether McArthur was prejudiced by the failure to go to trial.

For Exhibit 10, Bryon Brown correspondence, the court overruled the objection in part and deferred it in part. The court stated that a May 10, 2002 letter written by McArthur was admissible as a statement by an opposing party, while the admissibility of the remaining correspondence required a non-hearsay purpose or an applicable hearsay exception. The court deferred rulings on Exhibits 12, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 19, consisting of notes and correspondence, because the parties had not provided enough information about their purpose or a hearsay exception. Defendants must substantiate any claimed hearsay exceptions at the pretrial conference.

The court overruled the objection to Exhibit 21, the Coalinga client trust account, subject to establishing its foundation, and found it relevant to McArthur’s argument that the public defenders ignored him. The court overruled objections to Exhibits 22 through 26, including Coalinga records, training materials, and trial-continuance records, subject in some instances to establishing foundation. The court found these materials relevant to the reasonableness of the public defenders’ strategy, the reasons for delay, prejudice, and the defenders’ qualifications. The court also overruled objections to Exhibits 28 through 30, criminal and parole records, because they were offered as evidence used by sexually violent predator evaluators and the public defenders in developing strategy, rather than for the truth of the statements.

The court sustained the objection to Exhibit 31, Plaintiff’s civil lawsuits, because the exhibit was not produced during discovery. The court deferred a ruling on Exhibit 32, the operative complaint, because the court needed to know the purpose and portions for which it would be introduced. The court overruled objections to Exhibit 33, a declaration by Robyn Fass Wang, and Exhibit 34, photographs of training materials. It sustained the objection to Exhibit 35, a Department of State Hospitals response to a public-records request, finding no apparent relevance to McArthur’s specific case.

The court overruled the objection to Michael Aye’s testimony. It overruled the objection to testimony by several identified state evaluators, treating them as fact witnesses rather than retained experts and finding their evaluations relevant to the reasonableness of the public defenders’ strategy. It sustained objections to numerous witnesses who had not been disclosed, explaining that McArthur’s awareness that they existed did not provide proper notice that they might testify. It also sustained the objection concerning Robyn Fass Wang as moot because Defendants did not intend to call her unless she offered evidence within her personal knowledge, and McArthur had agreed not to present such evidence.

The court sustained Defendants’ objection to Exhibits 37 through 45, which were motions filed in other sexually violent predator cases. The court relied on the ruling excluding evidence of other sexually violent predator cases and also found that Plaintiff had not properly identified the exhibits. As to Rudy Kraft, the court overruled the objection in part and sustained it in part, consistent with the separate limits on his testimony.

Jury Selection, Verdict Form, and Instructions

The court directed the parties to review the standard electronic jury questionnaire and jointly propose up to ten case-specific questions by December 1, 2023. The parties were also directed to discuss which questions were most important because the court did not intend to ask all 66 questions submitted.

The court rejected Plaintiff’s objection to proposed verdict questions asking whether the District Attorney, the Superior Court, or McArthur’s public defenders caused the delay. It explained that responsibility for the delay is part of the legal test for deciding whether a due-process violation occurred. The court also explained that proposed questions about individual public defenders and periods of representation were intended to identify when a possible violation occurred, not to require McArthur to prove that every public defender violated his rights. The court nevertheless directed the parties to consider simplifying those questions.

The court stated that it would include specified preliminary jury instructions, including instructions on evidence, expert opinions, jury conduct, deliberations, and unconscious bias. The parties were ordered to meet and confer to provide missing information for proposed instructions concerning judicial notice and additional instructions of law.

Administrative Matters and Disposition

The court directed the parties to submit realistic estimates of witness-examination time and total trial time, and to be prepared to discuss public access to the trial and courtroom technology. The court also described possible masking requirements and courthouse restrictions for people experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 or other respiratory viruses.

Judge Kandis Westmore entered these pretrial conference rulings on November 21, 2023. The document rules on evidence and trial preparation; it does not enter a merits judgment on McArthur’s due-process claim.