Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Souvannachoumkham v. Premo

United States District Court, D. Oregon

September 25, 2019

VORLADETH SOUVANNACHOUMKHAM, Petitioner,
v.
JEFF PREMO, Respondent.

          Thomas J. Hester Assistant Federal Public Defender Attorney for Petitioner.

          Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General Nick M. Kallstrom, Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice Attorneys for Respondent.

          FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

          PATRICIA SULLIVAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         Petitioner brings this habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the legality of his state-court convictions for Murder, Attempted Murder, Assault, and Unlawful Use of a Weapon. For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#1) should be denied.

         BACKGROUND

         On October 23, 2010, Petitioner fired two bullets that killed one person and wounded three others at the Good Call Sports Bar and Grill.[1] Several eyewitnesses identified Petitioner as the shooter, and the Good Call had a video surveillance system in place that captured the shooting.

         Petitioner believed that the prosecutor had altered the Good Call's surveillance tape in some way so as to incriminate him. As a result, the defense filed a motion in limine to exclude the video evidence at trial. The trial judge denied the motion as follows:

Defendant contends subject surveillance video is not the original nor proper chain of custody and copies may have been tainted and/or altered and further prohibiting any and all mention thereof with reference to that in the presence of the jury.
This is Court's ruling: The Court has now reviewed the written documentation, has reviewed the oral submissions and arguments. The Court has carefully listened to witness testimony on this subject and reviewed exhibits which have been received into evidence for purposes of this motion.
So, in viewing the entire record, the court finds that the motion to exclude surveillance video and all the subsidiary parts of the motion, they are not well taken.
The motion is respectfully denied. So I will sign the order to that effect. Thank you.

Trial Transcript, p. 718.

         The trial proceeded and when the State cross-examined Petitioner, he testified in open court that the Good Call's video was a computer animated fabrication, and that he was the victim of a conspiracy involving the prosecutor. Id. at 1660, 1663. At the conclusion of Petitioner's testimony, defense counsel requested an ex parte hearing, and asked that the hearing be on the record. During the ex parte hearing, defense counsel stated that he had, in fact, retained a highly qualified expert to examine the video footage. The expert, however, concluded that the evidence contained no modifications. Id. at 1694-95. Defense counsel further stated that he did not ask the expert to generate a report because he did not want the results to be discoverable. Id. at 1695. Counsel believed Petitioner might be having a difficult time accepting the expert's conclusions based upon his former employment history with the Portland Police Bureau. Id.

         At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Petitioner of one count of Murder, three counts of Attempted Murder, three counts of Assault in the First Degree, and two counts of Unlawful Use of a Weapon. As a result, the trial judge imposed a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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