Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Marquis v. Iaria

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


December 4, 2007

BRETT ANTHONY MARQUIS, PETITIONER,
v.
VINCENT J. IARIA, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Leo S. Papas U.S. Magistrate Judge

SECOND ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING

On October 31, 2007, Respondent filed a Supplemental Answer to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to the Court's Order of August 20, 2007. In the Supplemental Answer, Respondent discusses the use of subpoenas to compel the victim and the victim's mother to produce the victim for trial. The Court, having reviewed the Supplemental Answer, hereby ORDERS that the parties address the following:

1. The legal procedures that would have been required to enforce the subpoenas issued by the trial court, and served on the victim and the victim's mother.

(a) Why those legal procedures were not followed in this case;

2. The legal procedures that would have been required to enforce the subpoenas issued by the federal court, and served on the victim and the victim's mother.

(a) Why those legal procedures were not followed in this case;

3. The legal procedures that would have been required to compel the victim's attendance at trial by use of state law material witness statutes and case law.

(a) Why those legal procedures were not followed in this case;

4. The legal procedures that would have been required to compel the victim's attendance at trial by use of federal law material witness statutes and case law.

(a) Why those legal procedures were not followed in this case;

5. Whether or not the facts related to the victim's return to Mexico had he testified at trial, be considered by this Court in determining whether Petitioner's rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated.

6. The factual and legal basis for the County Counsel's assertions that:

(a) "no legal entity" could enter Mexico to transport the victim to the trial court;

(b) the District Attorney could not employ a third party in Mexico to transport the victim to the trial court;

(c) Assuming that the victim's mother consented to and approved of, hiring a third party to help her escort the victim to the trial court, would the County Counsel's assertions change or remain the same. Please explain why the County Counsel's assertions would change or remain the same.

On or before January 14, 2008, Respondent shall file a Second Supplemental Brief that discusses the topics noted above.

The date by which Petitioner's Traverse shall be filed is extended to February 11, 2008. The Traverse shall discuss the topics noted above, as well as the topics noted in the Order for Further Briefing, filed on August 20, 2007.

20071204

© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.