SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A federal magistrate has ordered Sacramento County government and law enforcement officials to sit for depositions in the case of a man wrongfully convicted of murder and jailed for almost two decades.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes also fined attorneys for the county, the sheriff and the DA's offices $500 for not obeying local court rules. Additionally, she said she’s inclined to award Jeremy Phillip Puckett reasonable legal expenses, though attorneys have a chance to submit written arguments before a final decision.
The judge’s Wednesday ruling stems from Puckett’s 2022 civil case in the Eastern District of California. Puckett was convicted in 2001 of murder and robbery. Some 19 years later, his conviction was vacated and he was found factually innocent a year later.
“Jeremy Puckett’s wrongful conviction and ensuing years of incarceration were not an accident,” Puckett states in his complaint. “They were the product of reckless and intentional misconduct across three different Sacramento law enforcement agencies by Sacramento County employees who consciously disregarded Jeremy Puckett’s rights.”
According to Puckett, Sacramento County sheriff’s officials relied on a jailhouse informant — himself worried about being tied to the robbery and murder of Anthony Galati — when they accused Puckett. Detectives withheld evidence from Puckett and prosecutors, which a state court judge later found violated Puckett’s rights.
A deputy district attorney then withheld evidence from Puckett that the jailhouse informant only leveled his accusations after his DNA was collected.
A pathologist with the county coroner’s office then improperly estimated the time of Galati’s death, information prosecutors used when they levied charges against Puckett despite his alibi.
“These violations of Jeremy Puckett’s rights did not occur in a vacuum,” Puckett states. “At both the Sacramento Sheriff’s and District Attorney’s offices, longstanding customs, practices, and/or policies had blessed these behaviors and given rise to a culture of impunity in which detectives and prosecutors knew that they would not be held accountable for violating constitutional rights.”
The attorney for the county and law enforcement agencies couldn’t be reached for comment.
As part of his civil suit, Puckett wants to depose certain county and law enforcement employees. He filed a motion to compel last month, arguing they’ve ignored his attempts to meet. In fact, opposing attorneys only reached out to Puckett when he filed his motion to compel, saying further discussion wasn’t needed.
Barnes in her Wednesday ruling said attorneys must make a good-faith effort to talk in advance of filing a motion. She pointed to Puckett reaching out in six emails and two phones calls, though opposing attorneys said there was no need for further talks.
That’s a violation of local court rules, Barnes said.
Concerning Puckett’s motion to compel, Barnes said both sides are entitled to question witnesses in depositions. The county and law enforcement officials have used vague, unintelligible and unmeritorious arguments in opposition.
Barnes listed a series of arguments made by the officials and her reasons for discarding them.
The county and government officials have made “vague allusions to burdensomeness,” Barnes wrote, yet they’ve provided no details about how the time or expense required burdens them.
Sheriff’s officials have argued time constraints, though they’ve given no explanation. Additionally, they didn’t make that objection in a written response and can’t make it for the first time now.
District attorney officials have claimed Puckett has made only a few accusations involving the improper handling of evidence. However, Barnes noted a federal judge has already found Puckett’s claims don’t rely on some cases, but a significant number of times there was “evidence manipulation.” Puckett needs depositions to get those details.
Barnes also ruled the county’s objection to a public records request made by Puckett had no merit. The county said any effort to provide the requested information touched upon attorney-client privileges or work product.
“Presented with nothing more than this utterly vague and conclusory assertion, defense counsel has failed to provide any information necessary to assert attorney-client privilege or work product protection,” Barnes wrote.
The judge found discovery should be cooperative and mostly unsupervised. However, when that doesn’t occur, a judge can impose sanctions. Those penalties can take the form of attorneys’ fees.
“Here, it appears that defendants’ opposition to plaintiff’s motion was without merit and without substantial justification,” Barnes wrote. “Moreover, defendants have repeatedly asserted these unmeritorious arguments in opposing multiple discovery motions, sometimes verbatim.”
Buzz Frahn, an attorney for Puckett, praised the judge’s ruling on Thursday in a phone interview.
“It’s unfortunate that we’ve been put in a position of having to file so many successive motions to compel,” he said. “We’re grateful the court sees through their meritless excuses.”
The next hearing in the case is set for 10 a.m. Friday.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
Copper mining on hallowed ground May 15, 2024
