Opinion
CASE NO. C08-1091RAJ
10-03-2011
MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, Plaintiff, v. G. BRACKETT, et al., Defendants.
Marvin Glenn Hollis Plaintiff, pro se Kathleen Willams Counsel for Defendant
STIPULATION TO BE READ TO JURY
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury,
Sometimes the parties make agreements that are intended to make the trial go faster. In this case, the parties have reached a stipulation about the testimony of a witness, Darrell Cathren. This stipulation will allow both parties to avoid calling Mr. Cathren as a witness. I will now read several numbered statements. The parties have agreed that these statements reflect what Mr. Cathren would have stated if he had testified here today. You are to treat his stipulated testimony just as you would the testimony of any other witness.
1) Mr. Cathren would have testified that he was housed in the same cell as Mr. Hollis at the time of the events of this lawsuit.
2) Mr. Cathren would have testified that he had the lower bunk in the cell.
3) When Mr. Cathren moved into the cell with Mr. Hollis, he inspected the lower bunk mattress and found no holes, tears, or any damage to the corners of the mattress. He would have testified that the mattress looked essentially new.
4) Mr. Cathren would have testified that he received all of the property in his cell from prison staff on November 6, 2007. Prison staff searched that property before they gave it to Mr. Cathren, and found no weapons.
5) Mr. Cathren would have testified that on November 8, 2007, he made his bed in the morning, and that he saw no tears, rips, or re-stitched areas in the mattress.
6) Mr. Cathren would have tesitified that on November 8,2007, around 8:00 a.m., prison staff escorted him from his cell so that he could receive an injection for his diabetes. He would have testified that the medical treatment and other matters kept him away from his cell for about three hours.
7) Mr. Cathren would have testified that later on November 8,2007, prison staff questioned him about a weapon found in his mattress.
8) Mr. Cathren would have testified that Officer Brackett charged him with a serious rules violation.
9) Mr. Cathren would have testifed that the weapon in the mattress was not his, and that he had no knowledge of any weapon in the mattress.
10) Mr.Cathren would have testified that he was placed in administrative segregation while prison staff investigated the weapon discovered in the mattress.
Marvin Glenn Hollis
Plaintiff, pro se
Kathleen Willams
Counsel for Defendant