Robert Nicolaus

Case record: Robert Nicolaus

Background

Robert Henry Nicolaus murdered his three children and later killed his ex-wife.

Nicolaus murdered his three children (ages two, five, and seven) in May 1964. He was convicted of three counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The California Supreme Court reduced his convictions to second degree murder, and the State released him on parole in August 1977.

In February 1985, Nicolaus killed his ex-wife. Her identification of him as her killer occurred before her death.

The offence

Investigation

Nicolaus fled California after killing his ex-wife.

The FBI arrested Nicolaus in Pennsylvania in July 1985.

Arrest

Trial

A Santa Clara jury convicted Nicolaus of one count of first degree murder and returned a sentence of death in March 1987.

The California Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence in October 1991 and denied his state habeas petition in November 1991.

The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in June 1992. Nicolaus v. California, 505 U.S. 1224 (1992).

Sentencing

Nicolaus was sentenced to death for three counts of first degree murder in 1964.

In March 1987, a Santa Clara jury returned a sentence of death after convicting Nicolaus of one count of first degree murder.

Appeals

Nicolaus’ federal habeas proceedings included later litigation concerning discovery before filing a federal habeas petition.

In September 1992, the district court granted Nicolaus’ motion for a stay of execution, and in April 1993 the court appointed counsel for Nicolaus’ federal habeas appeal.

To date, Nicolaus had not filed a petition.

In October 1995, counsel for Nicolaus filed a discovery motion to serve subpoenas on the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office and the Sacramento Police Department, seeking access to all documents pertaining to Nicolaus’ case.1 Nicolaus maintained that the FBI had not given him all the documents relevant to his case, and he hoped to find some of these FBI documents in the files of the Sacramento authorities.

On December 8, 1995, without holding a hearing and without presenting any explanation of "good cause, " the district court granted Nicolaus’ motion to serve the subpoenas.

The district court denied Calderon’s request for a stay of the discovery order pending application to the court for a writ of mandamus. Calderon filed a timely petition with an emergency motion for a stay of the discovery order. The court granted the stay on April 5, 1996.

The case caption was: Arthur Calderon, Warden, Petitioner, v. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Respondent, Robert Henry Nicolaus, Real-party-in-interest. No. 96-70032. D.C. No. CV-95-02335-MMC. Opinion by Judge O’Sсannlain; Concurrence by Judge Schroeder.

The decision stated: PETITION GRANTED.

Outcome

The court granted the petition for a writ of mandamus (1) to vacate the discovery order issued by the district court and (2) to prohibit the issuance of any discovery orders until Nicolaus filed a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Aftermath

Nicolaus died in prison April 12, 2003.

Other details

Nicolaus was described as:

• sex: M
• race: M
• type: T
• motive: PC-domestic
• mode of offence: Shot his children, age two to seven (1964) and ex-wife (1985)

Disposition recorded:

• Condemned on three counts, 1964 (reduced to life on appeal, 1967; paroled 1977); condemned 1987.

Verdict and sentence timeline stated in the case summary included:

• death sentence reduced to life on appeal in 1967
• parole in 1977
• condemnation in 1987
• death sentence in 1987
• death in prison April 12, 2003

Verbatim quotations

“We must decide whether a California death row inmate is entitled to discovery before filing a federal habeas petition.”

“In appropriate circumstances, a district court, confronted by a petition for habeas corpus which establishes a prima facie case for relief, may use or authorize the use of suitable discovery procedures . . . .”
Id. at 290 (emphasis added)

“there simply is no federal right, constitutional or otherwise, to discovery in habeas proceedings as a general matter”

“federal habeas court must allow discovery and an evidentiary hearing only where a factual dispute, if resolved in the petitioner’s favor, would entitle him to relief . . . . Conclusory allegations are not enough to warrant discovery under Rule 6 . . . ; the petitioner must set forth specific allegations of fact. Rule 6 . . . does not authorize fishing expeditions.”

“state prisoner ‘is not entitled to a discovery order to aid in the preparation of some future habeas corpus petition’”

“Habeas corpus is not a general form of relief for those who seek to explore their case in search of its existence.”

“Accordingly, we grant the petition for a writ of mandamus (1) to vacate the discovery order issued by the district court, and (2) to prohibit the issuance of any discovery orders until Nicolaus files a federal petition for writ of habeas corpus.”

“PETITION GRANTED.”