Fresno, CA – At the beginning of the year, attorneys for Douglas “Chief” Stankewitz, convicted in 1978 of special circumstances murder, argued for his conviction to be vacated on numerous grounds including actual innocence, false evidence, and that the prosecutors withheld material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady.
In a 173-page decision, Judge Arlan Harrell denied the petition for writ of habeas corpus despite the petitioners presenting evidence that the gun in evidence was not the murder weapon.
“I am deeply saddened to hear that the court has denied our habeas petition on behalf of Mr. Stankewitz,” said Marshall Hammons, who served as counsel at the hearing along with Curtis Briggs. Legendary defense counsel Tony Serra was also part of the legal team, along with Alexandra Cock.
Hammons explained, “While were able to present a litany of issues before the court, perhaps most importantly, ineffective assistance of counsel from both the trial and appellate level, the issues regarding the gun, in addition to inconsistencies with the prosecution’s theory, the court found we did not meet our burden.”
In October 2023, the Vanguard spoke with Curtis Briggs, one of the lead attorneys. He explained that there were two key pieces of evidence that they would rely on.
The first is ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) by the trial counsel. He said while there was serious prosecutorial misconduct, “we believe that an even semi-diligent defense attorney would have immediately noticed this at the trial court level. And we think that that’s the most realistic way we can prevail.”
Second is that they want the judge to look at the evidence that the gun was planted, that the original prosecutor had lied to the court, and was attempting to frame Stankewitz.
Briggs thinks that might be a tougher sell: “I think politically, to the extent the judge is influenced by pressure politics or local politics, I think IAC is the most viable chance we have.”
Briggs said, “I certainly believe there was enough evidence that it could have been misconduct, that it could have and should have been pursued at trial by defense counsel, but defense counsel didn’t do their job and discover that.”
The evidentiary hearing was conducted from January 22, 2024, through January 31, 2024.
Judge Farrell ruled, “Petitioner has not proven that the firearm admitted into evidence as the murder weapon is false evidence because Allen Boudreau and Billy Brown testified falsely at the guilt phase of Petitioner’s second trial.”
He concluded, “Petitioner has not met his burden of proof on this false evidence claim. He has not demonstrated that it is more likely than not that any evidence that the Titan .25 caliber firearm admitted at his second trial is the firearm that fired the fatal bullet is false.”
The Petitioners contend “any evidence that Graybeal was killed with a .25 caliber bullet shot from a .25 caliber firearm is false. Specifically, Petitioner asserts that there is a disparity about the distance that the .25 caliber shell casing was found from Graybeal’s body, no .25 caliber bullet was ever recovered from the crime scene, and there is no forensic evidence that Graybeal was shot with a .25 caliber firearm.”
Nevertheless, Judge Harrell writes, “a lack of forensic evidence showing that Graybeal was shot with a .25 caliber bullet and a disparity in police reports about the exact distance that the .25 caliber shell casing was found from the body does not establish that any evidence offered to prove that Graybeal was killed with a .25 caliber firearm is false.”
Finally, the judge adds, “Petitioner argues that any testimony that he shot Graybeal is false because his gunshot residue test was negative. It is undisputed that Petitioner tested negative for gunshot residue. However, Petitioner presented no expert testimony establishing that a negative gunshot residue test conclusively means that a person did not fire a firearm.”
The Petition also contends a number of Brady violations.
First, “Petitioner argues that the loss of the small cut-out stained piece of the shirt he wore on the night of the murder that tested positive for blood and the jacket that Lewis was wearing at the time of the murder and when his booking photograph was taken violates his due process rights under Brady.”
Second, “Petitioner argues that his Brady due process rights have been violated because the tape recordings of the law enforcement interviews of Petitioner’s codefendants have gone missing.”
Here the judge counters, “Petitioner has not demonstrated that any of the interrogation or interview tapes possessed any exculpatory or impeachment value that was apparent before they were lost or destroyed.”
Third, “Petitioner asserts that the prosecution continued to cover up the 1973 date on the holster until they admitted its existence at the evidentiary hearing, which violated Petitioner’s due process rights under Brady.”
Fourth, “Petitioner contends that his due process rights under Brady were violated when potential blood evidence was lost when the dried stains on the clothing confiscated by law enforcement from he and his codefendants became too degraded to be tested.”
However, the judge ruled, “Petitioner has not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that his due process rights under Brady, Trombetta, and/or Youngblood have been violated.”
The judge notes: “In Petitioner’s second trial, the case was close. There was no physical evidence linking Petitioner to Graybeal’s murder.”
The jury was forced to decide which witnesses to believe.
Judge Farrell noted that “while Petitioner’s experts testified that the problems they identified gave rise to suspicions of potential law enforcement misconduct, both experts also acknowledged that they only had suspicions and questions about the way the investigation was conducted and the integrity of the evidence, as they likely would when considering the investigation decades after the fact.”
He added, “Neither expert had any solid proof that law enforcement or the prosecution had in fact tampered with, or planted, any evidence in Petitioner’s case.”
The judge concludes: “Petitioner’s new evidence could be used to impeach some of the witnesses against Petitioner, but the new evidence is not exculpatory.”
The attorneys for Stankewitz maintain his innocence.
Marshall Hammons told the Vanguard, “Mr. Stankiewicz continues to be held as an innocent man in the face of overwhelming evidence of his wrongful conviction. We will continue to fight for his freedom and never give up.”
